We live in the age of populism, apparently. This is a time when politicians say what people are thinking and don’t follow mainstream orthodoxy set by the Economist and the Financial Times. Okay, so why are politicians so unpopular with everyone? Young or old, left and right, we all hate politicians. Is the populist message not getting through?

Of course, when we say populism, we mean a certain type of right-wing populism. The Donald Trump or Nigel Farage anti-immigration type. If this is populism, why does everyone I know hate it? From the Boomers to Zoomers, everyone I know, they all can’t stand Trump or Farage. How popular is populism? And more importantly, who is it popular with?

I probably do live in a bubble, along with all those Boomers and Zoomers that I know, but then again so does the person who gets all his politics from The Sun or Ben Shapiro, and his “populist” anger is validated by politicians on the left and the right who talk endlessly about the “legitimate concerns” of people who rage about immigration all the live long day. However, my, and my Boomer and Zoomer friends, concerns about the environment are not “legitimate”. 

Legitimate concerns about housing

Yes, most people (in Britain at least) are sceptical about immigration. However, housing consistently ranks amongst the most pressing issues in voter’s minds, yet our so-called populist politicians don’t speak on it. It’s not just the people of East London - who all work in social media and then chow down ramen and craft beer at the weekend, whilst living in tiny flat shares into their late 30s, (y’know, not real people who don’t have “legitimate concerns”) - who are concerned about housing. Still Generation Rent aren’t considered populists.

From Workington to Warwick, housing is too expensive, private renting is poorly regulated, conditions are bad and even people with really serious need can’t get social housing. Surely, this is a cause for populists to take up? Especially, considering how many MPs have second homes or are landlords.

As Samir Jeraj wrote in the New Statesman: “Ending no-fault evictions brought together an unlikely alliance, from Michael Gove and Shelter through to radical grassroots groups who physically block evictions.” Ending no-fault evictions would be popular, piss off “elites” - i.e. the wealthy property owners, wouldn’t cost much and would also land a blow for the ground down everyperson. Isn’t that supposed to be the point of populism?

Populism isn’t popular

Is populism, perhaps, not what we have been led to believe it is? Maybe it’s not the roar of resistance by the ground down many against the powerful few, but instead a policy and communications programme aimed at activating the support of a certain set of voters? Y’know, like everything else in politics?

Populism isn’t popular with everyone, just a small group of people. The Farages and Trumps of this world are popular with a certain section of society and are toxic to almost anyone else. Both of their big electoral accomplishments, Brexit and the 2016 US election, were only achieved because both Farage and Trump had oppositions that were broadly unpopular - the EU and Hilary Clinton.

Who are the populists?

Who are the people who love populists? They are typically white, usually (but not exclusively) male, live in small towns, are older and didn’t attend university. Those last two are certainly the most important. These people are anti-immigration, anti-London, anti-mainstream politicians, anti-woke, anti-young people. 

Despite the claims that they are the overlooked masses or members of the working class, (see the discussion on “what is the working class” in this essay) they are more likely to be home owners or even private landlords. The more you look at it, the more populism seems to be the whims of a certain section of society.

What is unpopulism?

It’s not just housing. The environment is a key issue where there is a lot of public agreement, but little action from Westminster. However, agitating against Net Zero Emissions and in favour of the “man in the street’s” God-given right to drive whatever car he wants as much as he wants is the next major front for the populists. 

As Adrian Wooldridge wrote in the Economist’s Bagehot column: “On environmental policy, increasing numbers of Conservative MPs, such as Steve Baker, an influential backbencher, worry that attempts to reach ‘net zero’ will go down badly with the red wall. A growing crowd of right-wing MPs, columnists and think-tanks, such as Net Zero Watch, are pressing for a referendum on the topic.” 

Wooldridge goes on to discuss what he calls “unpopulism”: the idea that populist policies are not broadly popular, but do appeal to a certain section of society. He wrote: “The first signs of unpopulism emerged during Britain’s departure from the European Union. Politicians of all stripes argued over minutiae such as data-protection rules and phytosanitary standards. Beyond broad principles, few ordinary people cared. Yet in that debate, proverbial voters with a striking tendency to repeat MPs’ own views on, say, membership of the customs union, kept cropping up.”

Not the will of the masses 

This is not an age where populists are fighting on behalf of the downtrodden many against the rich few. Campaigning on wages, health, housing and the environment would be more popular than the right-wing culture wars the populists are serving up. ‘Populism’ boils down to the whims of older, socially conservative, non-university educated older people in small towns. It is not the will of the masses.

Ironically this description overlaps with Essex Man, or Mondeo Man, who were personas targeted by Tony Blair and New Labour. Winning their support gave Blair huge majorities, but also meant that politics was geared towards the interests of a small section of society that had swung the 1997 election for New Labour. Rail nationalisation was out, as it didn’t appeal to the conservative leaning Essex Man, and rhetoric about bogus asylum seekers was in.

These people rewarded Blair for all the attention he gave them by voting for Brexit and then kicking Labour out of Blair’s old seat of Sedgefield. Blair could win the votes of Essex Man, by pandering to his prejudices, but he couldn’t convince him of the importance of EU membership for the nation’s prosperity.

What is popular? 

Now Keir Starmer is targeting the new persona of “middle-aged mortgage man” - who looks a lot like the old persona of Essex Man, except he lives in the North or Midlands. Again, these older, home owning, socially conservative voters are the only people whose opinions matter to Labour. Their every prejudice about the woke, the young or protestors must be pandered to and their views must not be challenged. 

These voters may be key for Labour winning the next election, but what they want isn’t necessarily popular with the whole nation. Furthermore, Labour has adopted the view that no one else’s views count. A radical programme of economic transformation would be popular across the whole country, but Labour is only interested in pandering to the small minded prejudices of people who own homes and have security. 

We would be better off if we didn’t focus so much on what so-called populists offer, or what the people susceptible to populism want. From Blair to Brexit and now Starmer, populist voters get what they want a lot of the time, but still see themselves as overlooked outsiders rallying against the mainstream. We should focus instead on what is popular: improving health, housing, wages and the environment.

Polling station image taken by Rachel H and used under creative commons.