Maxwell Marlow is a researcher and commentator.
Much has been written about the left-wing omnicause – the way discrete campaigns all tend to adopt the same positions on Palestine, the environment, inequality, asylum seekers, etc. The Left has found itself in a Schrödinger-esque situation. Its calls to action are just, yet objectionable. Simultaneously, its actions to protest these causes are as objectionable yet popular – spray-painting private jets, locking down Central London, and voting Green. This has been of great concern to the right-wing press.
For all of its moral indignation, the Right has overlooked its equivalent of the Omnicause mindset.
Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has offered a political breath of fresh air. A genuinely popular figure-head in a presidential election, much to Rishi Sunak’s miscalculation, supported by a popular ‘contract with the people’. Offering fundamental NHS reform, sweeping tax-cuts, deregulation, and liberal state-upheaval; the Contract enough to make a Thatcherite’s heart fall into condition to make any cardiologist concerned.
Despite his table-thumping economics, there exists a fundamental failure to understand the cultural zeitgeist. Since the launching of the Contract, Farage and his team have gone on to promulgate the Right-Wing Omnicause. That being, a bashing of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and counter-narratives about the War in Ukraine. A perplexing development following an incredibly successful couple of weeks.
Populism can be commonly defined as a political movement of “the people” against a defined “elite”. The narrative goes that: the elite is actively and mendaciously betraying the people through a causal chain of craving for power, acquisition of status, and destruction of the status quo for the elite, at the expense of the people, to solidify such power. These arguments are not too far gone from the current feeling of Brits about the state of the UK. The burgeoning civil service and over-intrusion into the socio-economic life of British citizens has degraded the liberties and prosperity of Britain, and thus ‘change’ or ‘reform’ is popular.
Farage’s take on Ukraine, however, holds neither popularity nor sense. In the first instance, the British people are firmly pro-Ukraine and supportive of our response to the crisis. There is no new ground to be gained here. To back this up, Farage has argued that NATO policy has jabbed the bear too many times – this could not be further from the case. It was Moscow that co-signed, then reneged upon, the Budapest Memorandum to uphold Ukrainian sovereignty.
In this Treaty, nowhere was it understood that further NATO or EU expansion would mean illegal invasion. Indeed, Ukraine was guaranteed to be left to its own devices, at least by the Western world, despite Russian-sponsored electoral interference to pull it further into a COMINTERN-like orbit. To Kyiv, its sovereignty to act as a sovereign state was guaranteed by its largest neighbours – NATO and Russia. To question the status quo, and to onboard John Mearsheimer (who is a US isolationist, rather than pro-Moscow thinker), is to do no good for British interests in Europe.
Likewise, there was no formal agreement between Moscow and the NATO states not to expand Eastwards. It was therefore implied, until much later retroactively patched up by Putin, that sovereign states could do what sovereign states do – to join or leave whatever alliance they wish. Moscow’s historic illegal invasions, from Crimea to Georgia, should not be confronted with “it’s our fault” but with a robust rebuke. Dictators do not like being stood up to, especially by more technologically advanced and developed foes.
To Farage, these narratives have seemingly found their way into his core foreign policy analysis. NATO has been resoundingly popular, with its main opponent in Britain (that being Jeremy Corbyn) being whisked away to the dustbin of political history by the electorate. Putin’s regime has successively lied and covered up its reasoning for its illegal and barbarous war. So why give his lies succour? To question NATO is not to be heretical, but rather to go against the most strategically successful military alliance in history, and one which works in British interests, is fatalistic.
The other scion of the Right-Wing Omnicause, the criticism of the World Economic Forum, has long been a sacrament for popular Twitter-ites. Let’s set the record straight. The WEF is an ineffectual think tank that hosts a business conference in Davos, Switzerland, every year. The organisers matter not, nor does it matter who attends. Nor, even, does it matter who its members are.
It is the central figurehead for bad policy-making and ire for those on the populist right. From its PR-led claims of influence (none of which there is much evidence for) to the media hype around Davos, the think tank has attracted attacks internationally for good reason, even if often misplaced. To have a government implement its suggested policies would be a death knell for any government. Even the most lowly adviser would tell you as much.
The think tank supplies analysis and think-pieces that seem to be deeply unpopular to the countries which it is claimed to control – see the recent European elections, likewise the failure to convince populations of Net Zero, erosion of property rights, the so-called “Great Reset”, and the continuing growth of international flights, to name but a few. Britain is not a member of the WEF, as per Farage’s claim.
Nor are any governments under its control – anyone who works close to Whitehall can tell you as much. As Robert Hanlon wrote: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. This may seem like a defence of the WEF. It is not. The WEF does not have good, sound ideas, and nor do they have the influence their flawed PR campaign suggests. They merely exist as another voice in a vociferous debate about the future of politics in an increasingly unstable world.
Farage does not do himself any favours by appealing to this terminally online activism. It makes Reform seem unserious – less concerned with the genuine concerns of individuals concerned about Britain’s standing in the world, how its people live, what they make and sell, and how their future unfolds, and more concerned with online spats with highly clickable online, right-wing memes. To engage in them is to devalue the cause that Reform represents to voters – a chance to signal to incumbent parties that they are not delivering on their core promises.
The Left is content with their Omnicause. It does not sell and it continues to alienate the electorate. The Right should not fall into such a trap – those who argue for an evangelical ode to the Twittersphere should take note that, as Lord Cameron once said, “Britain and Twitter are not the same”. If Farage schemes to disrupt the status quo successfully, have faith: The plan is working, so why deviate?
Maxwell Marlow is a researcher and commentator.
Much has been written about the left-wing omnicause – the way discrete campaigns all tend to adopt the same positions on Palestine, the environment, inequality, asylum seekers, etc. The Left has found itself in a Schrödinger-esque situation. Its calls to action are just, yet objectionable. Simultaneously, its actions to protest these causes are as objectionable yet popular – spray-painting private jets, locking down Central London, and voting Green. This has been of great concern to the right-wing press.
For all of its moral indignation, the Right has overlooked its equivalent of the Omnicause mindset.
Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has offered a political breath of fresh air. A genuinely popular figure-head in a presidential election, much to Rishi Sunak’s miscalculation, supported by a popular ‘contract with the people’. Offering fundamental NHS reform, sweeping tax-cuts, deregulation, and liberal state-upheaval; the Contract enough to make a Thatcherite’s heart fall into condition to make any cardiologist concerned.
Despite his table-thumping economics, there exists a fundamental failure to understand the cultural zeitgeist. Since the launching of the Contract, Farage and his team have gone on to promulgate the Right-Wing Omnicause. That being, a bashing of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and counter-narratives about the War in Ukraine. A perplexing development following an incredibly successful couple of weeks.
Populism can be commonly defined as a political movement of “the people” against a defined “elite”. The narrative goes that: the elite is actively and mendaciously betraying the people through a causal chain of craving for power, acquisition of status, and destruction of the status quo for the elite, at the expense of the people, to solidify such power. These arguments are not too far gone from the current feeling of Brits about the state of the UK. The burgeoning civil service and over-intrusion into the socio-economic life of British citizens has degraded the liberties and prosperity of Britain, and thus ‘change’ or ‘reform’ is popular.
Farage’s take on Ukraine, however, holds neither popularity nor sense. In the first instance, the British people are firmly pro-Ukraine and supportive of our response to the crisis. There is no new ground to be gained here. To back this up, Farage has argued that NATO policy has jabbed the bear too many times – this could not be further from the case. It was Moscow that co-signed, then reneged upon, the Budapest Memorandum to uphold Ukrainian sovereignty.
In this Treaty, nowhere was it understood that further NATO or EU expansion would mean illegal invasion. Indeed, Ukraine was guaranteed to be left to its own devices, at least by the Western world, despite Russian-sponsored electoral interference to pull it further into a COMINTERN-like orbit. To Kyiv, its sovereignty to act as a sovereign state was guaranteed by its largest neighbours – NATO and Russia. To question the status quo, and to onboard John Mearsheimer (who is a US isolationist, rather than pro-Moscow thinker), is to do no good for British interests in Europe.
Likewise, there was no formal agreement between Moscow and the NATO states not to expand Eastwards. It was therefore implied, until much later retroactively patched up by Putin, that sovereign states could do what sovereign states do – to join or leave whatever alliance they wish. Moscow’s historic illegal invasions, from Crimea to Georgia, should not be confronted with “it’s our fault” but with a robust rebuke. Dictators do not like being stood up to, especially by more technologically advanced and developed foes.
To Farage, these narratives have seemingly found their way into his core foreign policy analysis. NATO has been resoundingly popular, with its main opponent in Britain (that being Jeremy Corbyn) being whisked away to the dustbin of political history by the electorate. Putin’s regime has successively lied and covered up its reasoning for its illegal and barbarous war. So why give his lies succour? To question NATO is not to be heretical, but rather to go against the most strategically successful military alliance in history, and one which works in British interests, is fatalistic.
The other scion of the Right-Wing Omnicause, the criticism of the World Economic Forum, has long been a sacrament for popular Twitter-ites. Let’s set the record straight. The WEF is an ineffectual think tank that hosts a business conference in Davos, Switzerland, every year. The organisers matter not, nor does it matter who attends. Nor, even, does it matter who its members are.
It is the central figurehead for bad policy-making and ire for those on the populist right. From its PR-led claims of influence (none of which there is much evidence for) to the media hype around Davos, the think tank has attracted attacks internationally for good reason, even if often misplaced. To have a government implement its suggested policies would be a death knell for any government. Even the most lowly adviser would tell you as much.
The think tank supplies analysis and think-pieces that seem to be deeply unpopular to the countries which it is claimed to control – see the recent European elections, likewise the failure to convince populations of Net Zero, erosion of property rights, the so-called “Great Reset”, and the continuing growth of international flights, to name but a few. Britain is not a member of the WEF, as per Farage’s claim.
Nor are any governments under its control – anyone who works close to Whitehall can tell you as much. As Robert Hanlon wrote: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. This may seem like a defence of the WEF. It is not. The WEF does not have good, sound ideas, and nor do they have the influence their flawed PR campaign suggests. They merely exist as another voice in a vociferous debate about the future of politics in an increasingly unstable world.
Farage does not do himself any favours by appealing to this terminally online activism. It makes Reform seem unserious – less concerned with the genuine concerns of individuals concerned about Britain’s standing in the world, how its people live, what they make and sell, and how their future unfolds, and more concerned with online spats with highly clickable online, right-wing memes. To engage in them is to devalue the cause that Reform represents to voters – a chance to signal to incumbent parties that they are not delivering on their core promises.
The Left is content with their Omnicause. It does not sell and it continues to alienate the electorate. The Right should not fall into such a trap – those who argue for an evangelical ode to the Twittersphere should take note that, as Lord Cameron once said, “Britain and Twitter are not the same”. If Farage schemes to disrupt the status quo successfully, have faith: The plan is working, so why deviate?