What is Populism

The Labour Party doesn't think Blue Labour is affiliated to it.

I was listening to radio 4 and decided to watch on tv at about 5.15 pm. I was mesmerised and not in a positive way.
It's impossible for me not to look at the way the Obamas, the Clintons and in fact all former presidents behaved with dignity and respect towards their predecessors. The tradition of a smooth transition was upheld until the moment Trump started talking. No policies again, just a self promoting dialogue about how he's going to make america great, put America first. He can't be ignorant of the fact that phrase America First was used to blame the Jewish community in Europe for attempting to drag the US into WW2, or that its used by the KKK.
I am not saying Trump is anti semitic but I am saying his self belief combined with his refusal to listen to 'experts' about climate change, or anything else is terrifying. Evidently, the Whitehouse website no longer has any reference to climate change or gay rights. We;re going back to the future.

Appalling Trump has attacked all his predecessors and is bent on destruction of so much that has been achieved with his rabid isolationist populism,

I have just listened to the most shocking speech from Trump. The worst type of nationalism. Full on populism.

* delete one of my 'not's. It should be 'I'm trying not to...'

Alison McGovern is Chairman of Progress, which isn't (I don't think) affiliated to the Labour Party. There are numerous political groups of all persuasions which aren't affiliated officially to political parties, but have MPs as members.

I'm not trying not to turn this into yet another anti-Labour rant.

If one of those groups is Blue Labour, I think it is affiliated to the Labour Party. ProgressOnline isn't, which is why it calls itself 'independent'. Well, that's what I understand anyway.

I really would hate the kind of backward-looking vision of Britain which Rutherford seems to be advocating to win votes. I much prefer Joe Jervis' argument for a forward-thinking patriotism.

The Labour Party obviously has big problems with reconciling the different values of its voters and I don't know what the answer is, nor what will happen. At the moment it doesn't have a 'populist' ethos - or, being more precise, it has a number of populist ethoses, but they're different. I suspect the situation will change as the demographic profile changes ie today's teenagers reach voting age and some of the older voters die.

It will be interesting to see if there's a backlash against conservatism in the UK. It might even come from the centre, which isn't really represented at the moment. Who knows?

It's not rubbish to voice one's opinion, dj. Isn't that all Rutherford's doing? I don't think he's claiming to speak for the whole Labour Party. How could he? Even Jeremy Corbyn can't do that.

How do you explain Labour MP Alison McGovern's chairmanship of the group?

There are 11 groups calling themselves Labour which are not affiliated to the Labour party.
Jonathan Rutherford belongs to two of those. He does not speak for Labour.
One of the ones he belongs to has been asked to be outlawed.
So to actually say that's what Labour has to do is rubbish. That's what one member of a fringe group says it has to do. Obviously anyone who is not a member of the Labour party will agree with him; people who have a vested interest in the Labour Party disappearing from the political spectrum.

But Lawson is one of the establishment. More than any other single person, he created the boom and bust economic cycle we experienced in the 1990s. He oversaw Big Bang, so opened the gates to neo-liberalism, which has encouraged corporatism.

Lawson doesn't like what he sees as 'leftie' interests such as LGBT and other minority rights or concern for the environment. He's not against the establishment - far from it. He's against protecting minorities and what some people label 'PC'.

I also think that Lawson is referring to quite a narrow group. Within his own Tory circles there are - and always have been - disagreements about socially liberal principles and concerns about the environment, etc. That's why he was so critical of Cameron. As a member of Thatcher's cabinet, he recognised (as did Thatcher) that the way to win an election was to woo Little England, even if he didn't really care anything about their interests. Compared with mainland Europe (or at least Western Europe), the UK is conservative (with a small c) to the core, which is one of the reasons I'm sad to leave the EU.

I note that Rutherford left out the age factor in his article. I suspect younger people think differently. It's one of a series of articles in the Labour Interest series. This is another:

www.progressonline.org.uk/2017/01/10/labours-patriotism-must-not-be-nostalgic/

Nigel Lawson and his explanation of populism, describes I think WHY someone might want to vote for a populist candidate, i.e. they reject established principles but that is all. It is as I said too simplistic and does nothing to describe a populist politician.

If that is what Labour has to do, I dont think it has a hope.
In most of those paragraphs, I dont think Labour comes anywhere close.

thatbags

I think that link is totally in line with my thoughts. It is not particularly partisan and makes points raised time and time again but they regularly get rebuffed.

If you don't mind there is one repeated point in your link that I do find a 'tad' annoying. I respectfully refer to the use of England and not say Wales where Brexit was voted for too.

A good appraisal.

Bother.

www.progressonline.org.uk/2017/01/10/brexit-is-labours-future/

[[http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2017/01/10/brexit-is-labours-future/ Brexit is Labour's future by Jonathan Rutherford of progressonline.org.uk, who describe themselves as "an independent organisation of Labour Party members" chaired by Alison McGovern MP.

Lawson doesn't like so-called political correctness, because it supports respect for minorities and more equality, which he abhors.

Lawson was and is a hypocrite - one of a number of very arrogant Tory grandees. These days, people think it was the poll tax which brought Thatcher down, but it wasn't. It was her opposition to supporting the ERM (the precursor of the Euro), which Lawson and Geoffrey Howe wanted. At the time Lawson was a Europhile. Knowing that Thatcher had to deal with men like him (and they were almost all men) almost makes me feel sorry for her.

Lawson's explanation of populism might possibly explain what happened in the UK referendum, but it's not a universal explanation for populism and, IMO, doesn't even tell the whole story anyway. In an interview, he even stated that he had never met Nigel Farage, because Farage's Leave campaign appealed to a different sort of voter. He dismissed the concerns of the 'working class' Leave voters just as he dismissed the concerns of the working class when he was Chancellor.

Lawson was a fierce critic of David Cameron, not for austerity or the harm which Cameron/Osborne did to the economy, but for Cameron's social liberalism.

In which case Nigel Lawson was wrong.
You can go and find another thread which you do not find boring, mair.
It's a discussion thread, not an argument.

If there is no such thing as right-wing political correctness, there can be only be right-wing populism

I don't see the logic of that? Since when was 'populism' the antonym of 'political correctness'?

Sorry but I've not really been involved in this thread. Boring topic IMO, defining a word which by its nature is nebulous just seems like argument for the sake of it.

Come on mair, finish it. You missed the last sentence.
If there is no such thing as right-wing political correctness, there can be only be right-wing populism.

Nigel Lawson was a fanatical Leave campaigner although he lives in France. I do wonder whether he has lost it

Oh Mair, don't spoil it. You started off so nicely

Is there such a thing as right-wing political correctness? I can't seem to think of any. It's only left-wingers who are condemned for political correctness.

I agree DJ (isnt it nice to agree on something?)
Why do you think that is the case?

Although I would add the 'condemning' comes more from the left for 'political incorrectness' except they don't call it that, they prefer to describe it as a 'phobia' or even 'hate'.