Populism Conclusion – An Enormous Failure of Common Sense 

 

 

“Before you slip into unconsciousness
I’d like to have another kiss” 

 

Following on from “Populism Explored”, this article considers whether populism can deliver meaningful change that benefits the majority. 

 

This recent quote from a YouGov survey was based on Labour, but the comment could equally apply to any mainstream party; “people expressed a view that the party is “dishonest”, “only interested in themselves”, and “the same as the rest.” 

Basically, people are disillusioned, which takes us back the essence of populism; “two antagonistic groups: “the pure people” and “the corrupt elite”.” 

“Populism Explored”, could be described as retrospective, in so much as it considered why populism had become so popular in the UK. A major part of this, has been their ability to spot opportunities and weakness, and their communication skills. 

As I wrote, the internet and social media has enabled them to communicate with greater immediacy, to control the narrative, and, more importantly, to create the narrative. 

Post the GFC, UKIP seized the long, stealthy recession to criticise their then target, the EU. Once Brexit was complete they needed a new target to energise the masses; immigration.  

In “A State of Hate”, I looked at how Reform had extended their anti-immigration message, introducing into the debate the hundreds of thousands of people who have been granted indefinite leave to remain (“ILR”)”. They suggested that this would save the country some £230bn, although, in true populist fashion, this is a wild exaggeration. 

In researching ILR, it appears that Reform are overstating the situation! 

 

“people expressed a view that the party is “dishonest”, “only interested in themselves”, and “the same as the rest.” 

 

There is no definitive number for ILR, however in late-2024, the number was C. 4.5m.  

As the propaganda suggest they are all on benefits, etc. I looked at the data for those claiming continued my research to understand who is claiming Universal Credit (“UC”), a monthly benefit for those with a low income needing extra support with living and housing costs, and those looking for work. unable to work due to an illness or disability. working or self-employed on a low income. 

 

As of June 2025, there were 7.9 million claimants, up from 6.8 million people in June 2024. Of these: 

 

• 76.4% were from the white ethnic group.  

• 10.3% were Asian/Asian British ethnicity group.  

• 6% were  Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicity group. 

• The Mixed/Multiple Ethnic groups accounts for 2.9%, while the Other ethnic group accounts for 4.4% 

 

The proportion of people in the ‘no work requirements’ conditionality regime (42%) continues to increase 

 

In June 2025: 

 

• 83.6% of  belonged to the immigration status group “CTA – UK, Ireland, Right of Abode” 

• 9.7% were in the “EU Settlement Scheme” group.  

• 2.7% were in the “Indefinite Leave to Remain (not EU Settlement Scheme)” group.  

• 1.5% were in the “Refugee” group. 1.0% of people on UC were in the “Limited Leave to Remain (not EU Settlement Scheme) including family reunion” group.  

• 0.7% of people on UC were in the “Humanitarian” group. 0.4% of people on UC were in the “Other” group 

 

Now, perhaps I’m being a bit dim, but it would appear that the vast majority of claimants aren’t immigrants, as, 76% are white, and 84% have the “right of abode (to live here”).  

 

Firstly, it seems we might be looking in the wrong place to save this money?  

Secondly, the cost savings seem disproportionately high when compared to this data, which appears to confirm that of the contested immigration is a problem only in the minds of those who might be described as racists, and opportunistic politicians seeking to find people to blame as they have no idea how to overcome the real issues. 

 

For any new readers, this column believes that the real issues facing the country,  are inequality, the cost-of-living crisis, housing and austerity. Which can be summarised as the failings of too many years of neoliberalism. 

Rather than fighting fire with fire, the mainstream parties are endorsing Reform by seizing on the perceived immigration problem. When they do offer criticism it is based on operational issues rather than moral ones.  

 

‘this column believes that the real issues facing the country, are inequality, the cost-of-living crisis, housing and austerity’

 

Reform has made “small boats” public enemy #1, but, they appear to have no method for dealing with it. 

The most plausible answer, is to join the EU initiative that seeks to stem the migrant flow out of Asia and Africa. This would, in effect, be the start of reversing Brexit, therefore it isn’t plausible. 

The Tories, as they continue their inexorable slide to irrelevancy are full-on Reform, pledging to create a new immigration taskforce modelled on Trump’s controversial Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agency. The proposed “removals force” will be tasked with deporting 150,000 people a year. 

They are also proposing a radical overhaul of the asylum system, granting refugee status only to those who have been directly threatened by a foreign government. Those who have escaped conflict or “less tolerant” laws on religion and sexuality will be excluded, meaning that “few” people would qualify for asylum under the tightened rules. 

Immigration tribunals and limited rights of appeal will be abolished, and there will be no legal aid for anyone fighting immigration cases. In addition, asylum seeker rights would be further diminished as they propose leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). 

Discussing this on the BBC, the presenter, Laura Kuenssberg, asked: “Where would the 150,000 people go?” To which the Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, replied: “That’s the least relevant question”.  

On leaving the ECHR, Kuenssberg asked, did Kemi really want to join Russia and Belarus as the only countries not to be signed up? 

Badenoch did and pointed-out that neither the US nor Canada were signatories, seemingly oblivious of the fact that neither would be eligible! 

In reality, leaving the convention is little more than reckless posturing – “trading legal stability and international credibility for cheap nationalist applause.” 

 

“trading legal stability and international credibility for cheap nationalist applause.” 

 

As I wrote in “Populism Explored”, “no issue is complicated, there are only simple and immediate solutions.” 

Whilst, when feeding the masses a scapegoat this lack of detail might suffice, there are always inherent implementational risks. 

Not wanting to miss the immigration bus, last week the home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, proposed doubling the time that overseas workers will have to wait – from five to 10 years – before they can apply for ILR or claim any kind of benefits. Also, they would have to volunteer in their local communities and pass a number of other existing tests to gain British citizenship. 

The Royal College of Nursing described the plan as “ignorant” and “pandering” to Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. 

Prof Nicola Ranger, their general secretary, said: “Health and care services would cease to function without migrant nursing staff. While other countries offer immediate paths to settlement for nurses, the UK is going in the opposite direction.” 

A social worker who spoke to the Guardian on condition of anonymity said 25-50% or more of his team would be likely to leave the UK if the government made it harder for them to gain citizenship. “The policy is foolish in terms of the impact it’s going to have on the NHS and [it’s] cruel on all the people it’s going to affect.” 

Moving on from immigration, the right also has a bee in it bonnet over climate change.  

 

‘Moving on from immigration, the right also has a bee in it bonnet over climate change’

 

Again, not wanting to be left behind, the Tories are proposing to repeal the 2008 Climate Change Act. Aside from keeping Reform in its sights, this would curry favour with Trump’s Maga movement, where denial of climate science is rife.  

Continuing the theme of taking ideas from Trump, Reform are proposing to enable spending by cutting bureaucracy costs, in-line with what DOGE is attempting in America. 

This is having a dress rehearsal in the newly elected Reform-led local councils, and is proving predictably problematic  

One, Kent county council, where the party sought to pilot drastic cost-cutting plans is going to have to raise council tax. Services were already “down to the bare bones”, said Reform’s cabinet member for adult social care, Diane Morton.  

Morton said she believed the local authority would raise council tax by 5% – the maximum permitted – as councils try to honour their legal duty to make sure spending adds up before budgets are set for next year. 

Kent is by no means an isolated failure, West Northamptonshire council said last month that council tax was “highly likely” to go up next year. 

Durham county council has also said that without additional funding from central government it will have to make “stark choices between council tax increases and cuts to vital local services”. 

Staffordshire county council’s Reform leader, Ian Cooper, said last month he hoped to reduce a 5% council tax rise, but added: “Whether we can deliver that based on inflation … we’ll just have to wait and see.” 

The real issues, inequality and the cost of living crisis, continue to be met with a deafening silence. 

 

‘inequality and the cost of living crisis, continue to be met with a deafening silence’

 

Recent research by the Resolution Foundation found that in 2006-08, before the GFC, it would have taken 38 years’ of median full-time earnings to lift a worker into the top 10th of the wealth distribution. By 2020-22 that gap had widened to 52 years. 

Molly Broome, senior economist at the foundation and the lead author of the report, said: “Wealth gaps in Britain are now so large that a typical full-time employee saving all their earnings across their entire working life would still not be able to reach the top of the wealth ladder.” 

The gap between the wealth of the average person and someone in the top 10% was £1m in 2006-08, but had widened to £1.3m in real terms by 2020-22. 

Broome said: “These gaps are doubly concerning as wealth mobility in Britain is low – people that start life wealthy tend to stay wealthy, and vice versa.” 

The wealth gap also highlights clear divisions within the country. 

Demographically, the average wealth gap between people in their early 30s and early 60s more than doubled in real terms, from £135,000 in 2006-08, to £310,000. 

Geographically, there are stark regional variations; the average level of wealth in 2020-22 stood at £290,000 in the SE driven largely by rising property prices, compared to £110,000 in the NE. 

Inequality, was to have been the defining policy of Boris Johnson’s 2019 Tory government. We can, perhaps, allows some slack on their total lack of implementation as Covid overtook events. 

In this weeks Guardian, there was an interesting article on this, by Justine Greening, who was responsible for education (“DfE”) in the Johnson government. 

She defined levelling up as “the means by which we achieve equality of opportunity – not by taking opportunity away from those who already have it, but rather by extending opportunities to those that don’t.” 

Within her department they used the phrase, “talent is spread evenly across our country, but opportunity is not”.  Therefore, both education and business were key to achieving stronger social mobility. 

 

“talent is spread evenly across our country, but opportunity is not”

 

This was supported by research by the Institute for Policy Research at Bath University and others, which showed that the 12 “opportunity areas” created by the DfE, with place-based approaches to improving education outcomes, “led to young people in those communities being up to 18 percentage points more optimistic about their future than those in comparable communities without these programmes in place”. 

Dealing with the cost-of-living crisis perhaps requires both a bottom-up and top-down strategy. 

Looking at the former, fundamentally we need to get more money into peoples pockets.  

For example, cutting interest rates reduces peoples debt servicing thus increasing their spending power. The downside is that it does little for the millions renting their homes. 

From a fiscal perspective, the nil rate band could be increased substantially, or the basic rate of tax reduced; ideally both. This would be expensive and mean raising taxes elsewhere. At this point the PM should reminded that in his speech about fixing the foundations of our country on 27th August 2024 he said;  “those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heavier burden.” 

The top-down approach could consider how we deal with the excess fat that both our food shops and energy suppliers appear to have.  

 

‘The price of Gold is like the fear index; a measure of markets perception of uncertainty, instability and stupidity’

 

In “Fine Words, Good Intentions, But…..”, I referred to Unite’s research that showed Tesco paying out £12.4bn to shareholder since 2021. Of how the top-200 energy companies recorded profits of more than £30bn in 2024, and how 17,000 companies have increased their profit margins by 30% since pre-pandemic levels.  

None of them will want to pay, but clearly they are in a better position than most….  

All of this is a sea of divisiveness, and misery, but populism isn’t offering solutions to the real problems, just scapegoats to distract the masses.  

Anyone doubting that should look to Trump’s America and the price of gold. 

The price of Gold is like the fear index; a measure of markets perception of uncertainty, instability and stupidity.  

 

“There were children crying and colours flying, All around the chosen ones “ 

 

 

‘My simple conclusion is that populism and Reform are no more likely to make the fundamental changes required by the country than anyone else..

In fact, as they are economically neoliberal they, along with the Tories, are less likely than more moderate parties to do something different. Having said that, Labour are doing nothing different either!

Whilst, ideologically I dislike Reform and what they stand for, I tried to be objective and justify my thoughts with evidence, research, and data.

The article barely references this week’s Tory party conference, which only serves to highlight how irrelevant they have become. However, there were some bits that were too good to overlook.

Overall, it is hard to escape the conclusion that they are a Reform tribute act.   

Kemi summed up their collective delusions when she said: “We are the party who can deliver a stronger economy and secure our borders.”

Clearly she is in a time warp, and has forgotten how their 14–yrs in government had trashed the economy achieving zero growth and maximum austerity, and our borders to mass migration.

Policywise, it was hoot; abolishing the stamp duty that new buyers in England and NI have to pay on house purchases over £125,000, at an estimated cost of £9bn a year, funded by C.£50bn in spending cuts by 2029

There was her “golden economic rule”, should the party retain power, which would mean spending at least half of any savings on reducing the deficit.

“That’s the Conservative way,” she said. “Responsibility today, opportunity tomorrow.”

And unlike the other parties, “We’ve started doing politics in a new way. No more making the announcement first and working out the policy detail second.” This was interesting, as it was clearly what she had just announced

There was nothing on offer that would rehabilitate the Tories, instead they are becoming an incubator for future Reform candidates.

Conspicuously silent were the “one nation Tories”, who still exist, somewhere. For them, there is still the opportunity for a sensible, centre-right party to advance on to terrain that will fall vacant if, as they expect, Keir Starmer is dragged leftwards by a rebellious Labour party that doesn’t trust its current direction of travel. The LibDems, not wanting to be outflanked on social conscientiousness, will drift with that tide.

In theory, this could provide the opportunity for revival of a traditional, pro-enterprise, fiscally disciplined, mild-mannered Tory party, offering sound economic management and rejecting Reform’s swivel-eyed school of crank conspiracies and race-obsessed grievance mining.

Until then, only those that enjoy moaning and blaming others will continue to rule the roost.

Lyrically, we start with The Doors and “The Crystal Ship”. in tribute to all those who suffered at the Tory party conference. A sea of irrelevance. We end with Neil Young and “After the Goldrush”, which as it powers through $4,000, and with warning of an AI-led implosion looks to be a safe haven.

Philip.

 

@coldwarsteve

 

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

 

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: