For not understanding why "populism" is seen as such a bad thing

[TemporaryPosition]

Is the point of democracy not to have popular support?

@TooBigForMyBoots

"Brexit is a great example of Populism at work."

Also a large number voted Leave because as you put it "to piss off the Metropolitan elite".

The Government at the time was very unpopular and after being told by the Government to vote Remain, a large number decided to say stuff you- I'm going to vote the other way.

The difference on Brexit regarding populism is that today there are very few people who still believe it was the right decision.

Ah, you're one of these people who think people can change sex? OK.

There appears to be a groundswell 🤔of sentiment in the US saying "How come judges ae allowed to say NO to Trump ?" with the explicit subtext that judges should not have that right.

Because "the people" override "the law".

And that is the end destination of populism. No law. No rights. No anything. And when your rights are subservient to the actions of the state, then you, my popular friend, have reinvented fascism. Enjoy your popular government.

So UK is a fascist state? Or on its way

The term populist is bandied about so much it's begun to lose it's meaning for some people. Some people like to use it as a way to cast aspersions on any policies they disagree with that have popular support.

Whether something is populist, or just popular, often (not always) just depends which side of the debate you're on.

I never said that. The tactic of setting up a strawman and knocking it down is straight out of the populist playback, BTW.

I didn't support the Scottish law. However, blocking it was a move based on populist. Both things can be true; life is complicated. Populists struggle with that.

When people talk about judges as 'enemies of the people ' then yes, that is a step on that road.

@pointythings

"Oh come on. Making undeliverable promises is not the same as making a policy in a devolved government situation and having it blocked."

Not the devolved government of Scotland but how about Labour making the following populist undeliverable promises:

"We're going to smash the smuggling gangs"

"To make the UK the fastest growing economy in the G7"

The reality is all politicians make undeliverable promises they only get dismissed as "populist" when they come from a political party the person disagrees with.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2k574ydyyqo.amp

Let's give it a Parliament before we decide, shall we? It's not looking great so far, but they've done more deportations in the 8 months they've been in than the previous lot managed in years, and there's been a solid gang smash too. The economy is a tougher ask, but I am prepared to give it one Parliament.

You mention democracy in your OP. If you value democracy then don't vote for populist leaders. They want and will install fascism and work to destroy democracy.

If you look at Germany in the 1930s, Hitler was a populist. Mussolini as well.

Populism pitches itself as "in touch with the real people" and against a perceived "elite". It wants to disrupt, to sell easy answers to complicated problems, and to exploit disillusionment, distrust of the establishment and it's generally anti-intellectual (see Gove and his "sick of experts" nonsense.)

It can be left or right. It's not an ideology, it's an approach. It's easy to sell. Workable solutions are complicated and not convenient three word slogans that will fit on a banner (or a bus).

It's dangerous because it encourages a mob rule mentality. Might makes right, and no nuance. Vulnerable and powerless groups do very badly under populist regimes.

Exactly. And it presents itself as if it's "for the people" when the truth is the exact opposite. It will destroy freedoms, create oppression, make ordinary people poorer and the rich richer.

I'm honestly disgusted by a lot of the populist rhetoric in the world at the moment. Dangerous people about.

Even were I to answer that question, it would make fuck all difference to anything.

Also, it would be a tad too ironic on a thread about populism to provide a snappy soundbite answer in place of suggesting posters think for themselves. That's partly how we got here.

What do you think ?

I will note that even the previous government - who will be remembered when we are all dust as the most venal self serving and corrupt administration of the 21st century - even they balked at the prospect of telling the Supreme Court to "shove it". And ultimately bottled crossing the Rubicon of openly defying the courts. So to heap irony upon irony, despite being labelled "fascist" by the less energetic thinkers, in the final analysis, the Conservative government of 2019-2024 still pulled up before the rule of law.

Just.

We now turn our gaze to that wayward child we call "America". Where people are busy asking ChatGPT "How are the courts allowed to stop the President" and getting the answer "JD Vance says they aren't". And we have to remember that ultimately the higher you go the more optional complying with a court decision becomes. Both in the US and the UK, the supreme court has no way of directly enforcing it's will should the government of the day decide not obey it's rulings.

That's the thing with Populism, after the dust settles, many who voted for the lies of populist politicians come to regret it. They eventually realise they were manipulated into voting against their best interests and those of the country.🤷‍♀️

I think this post demonstrates exactly what is wrong with populism. People voting mindlessly for spurious reasons without paying the slightest bit of attention to what they're actually voting for. So dangerous.

Isn't this what Labour did though? They misled the public to get elected.
They have introduced policies like WFA, NICS, Farmer IHT etc but none of this was mentioned in the election campaign. People who read the manifesto and voted Labour had no idea what they were voting for.

I think there is a world of difference between a party bringing in a policy that contradicts their manifesto, and just bringing in a policy that wasn't mentioned.

Remember we had quite a few policies from the last government (Rwanda) that were never once put to the electorate.

At the end of the day, we do not elect delegates. We elect representatives. People are free to pretend we elect delegates, and representatives are free to pretend to be delegates. However the bottom line is your MP cannot be forced to vote one way or another. And - most crucially - your MP cannot be prevented from voting.

Populism can only exist if the electorate is ignorant of the process.

People who voted Labour in many cases were voting to oust the Tories, the worst govt we have ever had. Hope this helps.

So you think what Labour did is all above board?
They misled with their manifesto which means that it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
Changes to WFA was introduced almost immediately. Why didn't they put it in the manifesto???

So they acted exactly as the op did? Voted without paying attention to policy yes??

washingtonmonthly.com/2017/01/31/the-12-early-warning-signs-of-fascism/

EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
4. Rampant sexism
5. Controlled mass media
6. Obsession with national security
7. Religion and government intertwined
8. Corporate power protected
9. Labor power suppressed
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
11. Obsession with crime and punishment
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption

If you vote for populism you vote for these.

The OP is a populist politician's wet dream.

That's not true. The Labour Party were very clear that we are in tough times and difficult decisions would have to be made. That is not populism.

Populists tell stories of Sunlit Uplands.

Rwanda

your go.