What is the best argument for a populist right government?
For some, it will be about preventing civilizational collapse but, personally, I find these arguments rather overstated and their proponents disturbingly overexcited. But is there a compelling economic argument for a populist right government?
Some obviously think so.
The starting point is that the country is in an economic mess. Our debt is high and set to grow, passing on huge problems to future generations. Growth is low to non-existent, and has been for years. Taxes are at record levels, but our public services short of cash. Energy costs are expensive, as are houses. The State is cumbersome, and appears incapable of getting anything done. We have now had two governments with large majorities – one from each of the traditional parties – failing to deliver change.
At this point, it is hard to disagree.
When it comes to the causes of our travails, the populists’ public messaging tends to the simplistic, with all problems put at the door of immigrants, the lanyard-wearing official class, and liberal politicians who do not believe in Britain. But there is something to the argument that the political establishment has become too timid and short-termist, and too focused on appealing to its fragile electoral base. Conventional politicians, it is argued, cannot rise to the challenge.
The contrast is drawn with Margaret Thatcher. Like today, she inherited a country in the doldrums. Successive governments had failed, national morale was low, and radical thinking was required. Cometh the hour, cometh the woman. She was brave, principled, charismatic, and right wing. It was not straight-forward or easy, but within four years the country had been turned round. We need to do this again, it is argued.
This is what one would hear from the hedge fund managers and other entrepreneurs now bankrolling Reform UK. Yes, some of them might have forthright views on the threats to our Judeo-Christian heritage, but they also want a more dynamic economy, a smaller state, and no-nonsense Prime Minister who will reform the country. Just like Maggie did.
There is nothing wrong with that desire. We do need to get control of the public finances, we do need to take some tough long-term decisions, we do need to focus more on growth, and we do need the State to be more responsive and agile. The recent record of politicians from the major parties is poor on these points. And yes, Mrs Thatcher’s government did transform the country for the better.
The problem is that any confidence placed in the populist right to deliver a reforming government on a par with the Thatcher government is extraordinarily misplaced. As an argument, it misunderstands her government, and it misunderstands the populist right.
It is true to say that Mrs Thatcher’s political positions when she began her time in office were outside the mainstream consensus view of her era. Her leadership style was also direct and robust, and she could communicate with parts of the public that was both effective and, for much of fashionable opinion, infuriating. There was certainly times when she engaged in populism, but she did not lead a populist government for four reasons.
First, there was an intellectual rigour and coherence to Thatcherism. A huge amount of serious policy work was done in advance of the 1979 General Election. Her first two Chancellors of the Exchequer – Sir Geoffrey Howe and Nigel Lawson – were two of the most cerebral figures of modern politics who had thought deeply about the country’s predicament and the available solutions. Radical though they were, neither could ever have been described as populist in either tone or substance.
Second, there was the political bravery. The Thatcher government was determined to bring down inflation, recognising that this was both necessary and painful. Uncompetitive businesses and industries collapsed, unemployment soared, and Tory support plummeted. We may now live at a time when it is commonplace for the governing party to be third in the opinion polls, but in 1981 it was unprecedented. It did not, however, deflect the government’s purpose.
Third, it was a government that was distinctly of the centre right not the populist right. One of the great divides between the two traditions is the attitude to institutions and, in particular, the rule of law. Mrs Thatcher – a former barrister – repeatedly emphasised the importance of the rule of law (including, incidentally, international law), and placed it front and centre of her case for defeating militant trade unions and the Argentinian junta.
Fourth, her support at elections depended upon a broad base of middle class and aspirational working class voters. In the 1979 and 1983 General Elections, the Tories won 48-50 per cent and 55-57 per cent respectively of the support of professional and senior manager voters (AB voters) and won, or were at least competitive, with every age group. This gave it a support base that was broad, diverse and essentially pro-growth.
None of these attributes apply to populism more generally and Reform UK in particular.
Given that Nigel Farage is on record at having praised the economic policies of both Liz Truss and Jeremy Corbyn, it is a little optimistic to expect as Prime Minister he would demonstrate intellectual rigour and coherence on economic policy. Nor when we look at other examples of populist governments – Donald Trump in the US, Boris Johnson here – is there any reassurance of a well thought through policy agenda. The same could be said for political bravery. Farage, by temperament, is (like Trump and Johnson) all about pleasing his base. As for the attitude to institutions and the rule of law, populists advocate a world in which strongmen can act unconstrained. This creates uncertainty and instability that is loathed by business and investors which, in turn, makes growth harder.
Then there is the voter base. Reform UK’s support is very narrow – based on older, less educated voters. If the party achieves the support of 15 per cent of AB voters, it will be doing well. For all the hope of bringing renewed dynamism to the British economy, Reform UK will not have assembled a pro-growth electoral coalition. A parallel can be drawn with Brexit. There is an arguable case that Brexit enabled a bold Singapore-upon-Thames growth strategy, but such an agenda was never pursued. Why not? It would have been impossible to sell to the coalition of voters who backed Leave.
All of these weaknesses were exposed by Reform UK’s retreat on the pension triple lock.
Here is a policy that every serious policy thinker recognises has to be ended at some point. Its continuation is the wrong priority for a country that wants to focus on economic growth, and certainly not consistent with an aspiration to deliver a smaller state. Farage and Jenrick know that, and clearly considered dropping it – as a radical, reforming party of the right should do. But for a party so heavily dependent upon pensioner voters, it is an argument they lack the courage to make.
For those frustrated with recent governments, who believe that we need to take a more radical approach, who hope that Farage can confront the tough realities in the way that Mrs Thatcher did (who, incidentally, increased the State pension merely in line with inflation, saving taxpayers billions), it should be a revealing moment. The country may well need a brave and radical government, but the populist right – including Reform UK – is not going to provide it.