What is Populism

Thanks, varian. Very powerful, and only one word.
People should listen to it.

Akthough it's actually two words...

In this ten minute talk by Howard Jacobsen he chooses "the people" as his word of 2016. This throws some light on populism

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b085bg5w#play

Amazing what we can achieve when we put our heads together!!!!!

That helps me make more sense of it MaizieD thank you.

Maybe I should dig out a copy of the 'Don't Cry for me, Argentina' DVD. I didn't understand the politics behind Peron when I saw it years ago.

I agree with your last comment, MaizieD. I've started to look at South American politics. I hadn't known much about it before, but populism is alive and kicking - and it would appear that it's mainly coming from the left, although (sadly) usually seems to end up in failure or some kind of dictatorship.

Thank you for posting that YouTube link, GracesGran. I hadn't seen it before. Matthew Goodwin was the co-author of the book I mentioned before. His talk (2014, so the same time as the book) summarises the book quite neatly. The book contains further details, such as research methodology, sources and full data tables.

Goodwin is an academic political scientist, not a politician. This is an interpretation of the data and does not include value judgements. He uses the term 'left behind' as a shorthand for certain demographic groups. Before 2014 it was thought that UKIP supporters were mainly Europhobic Tories, but his work showed otherwise. This was quite ground breaking in 2014, because politicians hadn't accepted how much support was coming from former Labour voters.

Analysis of the 2015 election results and, even more strikingly, the referendum result shows how right Goodwin was. UKIP seems to be having its own problems now, but some people, such as Arron Banks, understand the implications of Goodwin's work. Hence the talk about parking UKIP's tanks in Labour strongholds and Nuttall's attempts to appeal to what Goodwin describes as the 'left behind' groups. What we're seeing is an attempt to inflame populist feeling. Whether or not UKIP has the organisation and discipline to become a serious political party remains to be seen. The other political parties ignored 'popular' discontent and are paying the price - well, Labour is - the FPTP voting system will probably keep the Conservatives in power, despite their unpopularity.

PS. I'd like to comment on many other posts, but I'm a bit short of time and don't want to flood the thread with my thoughts anyway.

PPS. I recommend watching the video, although populism is, of course, not confined to the UK nor is it entirely right-wing.

I certainly agree that right wing populists jump on the nationalist band wagon but wonder if left wing ones do. Is a fight for 'the people' nationalist?

I think that left wing 'populism is more often seen as 'supranationalist' as it is associated with a global socialist movement. Certainly the right wing media seem to associate socialism with being unpatriotic. As if wanting better wages and working conditions for your fellow countrymen (countrypeople? ) was part of an international plot to destroy capitalism and national identity.

Taken on board gg will get back only Professor Umbridge is taking my attention at the moment.

I have been working through your OP whitewave and have reached nationalism.

I certainly agree that right wing populists jump on the nationalist band wagon but wonder if left wing ones do. Is a fight for 'the people' nationalist? In either case the point is lost in their rhetoric that 'nationalism' and 'the people' means different things to different people. The populist movement narrowly defines both loyalty and patriotism and, in the left-wing case, the definition of what constitutes 'the people' is narrowed too.

If these movement gain control these narrow definitions are not only seen as preferred but have ended up in the past with people going to jail or worse if they express anything outside them.

I am afraid that the picture you describe of the civil service is entirely inaccurate mair

But it has nothing to do with this thread whatsoever.

i think the next thing in our look at what poplulism means and how it operates is to look at the various language and concepts it employs in its pursuit of power. So perhaps those with which we are most familiar are Farage and Trump. I'll begin to bring together some of this evidence and get back asap, well in between lunch and stuff and actually Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1

We have one of the best and most apolitical civil services in the world in my view and because of this it has worked with changes of government for centuries giving us a great deal of continuity into change.

This is not about one political event but about the way we are governed.

If would feel concern if there was any politicisation of the civil service. What they discuss should be from an informed view and in private with their ministers. The idea that they are being told the tenor they should use smacks of Newspeak to me.

varian I agree with your post (Sat 07-Jan-17 11:58:01) but you only mention 'Nationalist and ultra-right politicians' and I feel it applies to the left too for example both the French Revolution and Communism started as populist uprisings.

Re posts not being answered - it happens. Sometimes the same thing is said more than once (people typing but not know what will be posted as they post) sometimes people choose not to reply or don't think they have anything to add. It's a little precious to complain - mostly nothing is meant by it.

Rinouchka
Roses, you are right, civil servants do advise politicians but based on their knowledge and research, not their political beliefs

In an ideal world that would be true. However since civil servants have their political beliefs just like everyone else. I am afraid the idea that they behave like neutral automatons in reality is far from accurate. Indeed many have chosen a career in Whitehall precisely because they are strongly interested in politics and hold strong views and hope to gain power and influence.

Whitehall is unfortunately very strongly pro remain and I fear this is a huge problem for May (giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she now supports Brexit).

Selling Brexit is not going on, that was last Summer.It will happen, there is no choosing again on the agenda.

I can't see anything about a political standpoint in it at all.

Agreed, but that is not testing their political beliefs is it? The referendum has been and gone, and is now a matter of managing things to the country's best interest.You could say that trying to calm fears comes into that category.

Yes it does and should be cause for concern. It is the politicians job to sell us Brexit not the civil servants.

They should only advise and produce reports etc, but definitely not from any one particular political standpoint. Using language like patriotic should arouse alarm bells.

Roses, you are right, civil servants do advise politicians but based on their knowledge and research, not their political beliefs. I share Maizie's concern that now, they are being asked to control public opinion ( if this is true) by putting a spin on what information is distributed. That goes beyond their brief as non-political advisors and is frankly scary.

Does that mean you think that the civil service, who advise Ministers have never advised them to play down something which may cause unrest/worry in the general population? I am sure that from time to time that would happen.

Because, roses civil servants, whatever their personal views, should be non-political. It is their job to give honest, informed and impartial advice when it is asked for and to implement policy whether or not they personally agree with it.It is not their job to put political 'spin' on government policies. That is for politicians and their advisors to do.

If people are nervous about the implications of Brexit I think that many would become even more 'nervous' if they thought that government institutions such as the civil service and the judiciary were merely yes men and cheerleaders for the executive. That is the way that authoritarian regimes maintain their hold.

The is utterly characteristic of populist movements. Look at the way Farage has pitted one group against another I.e. "Ordinary folk v the elite" "British v immigrants."

Trump , very similar rhetoric.

Le Pen again the same.

But if we look at what these terms "ordinary folk or elite means, it is very difficult to define them in a sensible way. On the face of it it looks obvious and beguiling, but it if we just look at the concept " ordinary people" and think about it we soon realise that it tells us absolutely nothing or covers such an enormous area as to be useless.

Interesting the language used. But the civil service will advise and carry out as ever.