Main Edition
US
FR
February 6, 2024 - 1:00pm
The rise of populism is the most disruptive political trend of the last two decades, and there’s no sign of it fading away. Just in the last few days, we’ve seen hard-Right parties hitting record highs in the Netherlands and Portugal.
Evidently, the populist phenomenon has not been overhyped. And yet it may be helping to mask a less obvious but nonetheless important trend, which we might call “party swapping”. This is what happens when voters get tired of an established party and shift their support to a substitute party in the same part of the political spectrum.
Contemporary examples include France, where the centre-right Republicans (i.e. the French Tories) haven’t just lost support to Marine Le Pen, but also to Emmanuel Macron — who, for all his liberal posturing, has governed from the centre-right.
Then there’s the Netherlands, where the once-mighty Christian Democrats were overtaken by the equally centre-right Liberals and then, at the last election, by New Social Contract — a breakaway faction from their own party.
In the 1990s, the Italian Christian Democrats, mired in scandal, were displaced by Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia. But that was just the start of the party swapping — Forza was subsequently elbowed aside by Matteo Salvini’s Lega, which was in turn superseded by Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy. Admittedly, there was a lot populism involved along the way, but Meloni governs Italy as a no-nonsense conservative, not the mad neo-fascist some feared she was.
So for all the undoubted appeal of contemporary populism, it’s important not to overlook the desire of voters to replace failing centre-right parties with improved versions. The radical change they seek is far more institutional than ideological.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI vowed to never vote for any party that supported vaxx passports and vaxx mandates during Covid. Right now, that limits my choices in the upcoming elections to the far right and the far left.
Reform aren’t “far right”, merely “right”. Richard Tice is not a fascist, and neither is Nigel Farage.
I may well vote Reform at the next election. If I really thought the party was racist, for example, I wouldn’t dream of doing so.
That’s what bugs me about essays like this. It’s not me the voter who has shifted right. Traditional political parties have all shifted to the left. It’s not even that though; traditional parties have morphed into some kind of amorphous political blob that all share the same fringe, unreasonable political beliefs.
I will never endorse any politician who wants to send my young relatives off to war and death.
The next election is going to usher in Technocrat B to replace Technocrat A. It will take another couple of years of disillusionment that the replacement technocracy is a mere continuation of the existing technocracy before populism really kicks off in this country.
The forthcoming general election is one that I will follow through the night as results are called.
Does anyone know how late in the electoral cycle a sitting MP can announce a party switch? Presumably a conservative candidate could not switch to the Reform Party two days before polling day if already listed on the ballot?
I cannot find the answer but after posting my question it occurred to me that when Parliament is Dissolved prior a general election all sitting MPs become ex. MPs who no longer hold that title. Apparently MPs have to clear out their office space in Parliament a few days after dissolution.
My restated question is “How late in the 3 week General Election process could the presumptive conservative candidate in a constituency switch to the Reform Party?”.
That’s true, but it’s equally true for Labour. What also usually happens when either party is in trouble is the ideological side of the party threatens to break away and split the party.
Maybe we should welcome a proper shake up, after all, what we have currently is a political wasteland that fails to inspire anyone.
When was the last time you were passionate about voting?
June 2016 for me.
How about a party that understands its members work for the public and not the other way around? While we debate the vagaries of “populism,” what’s lost is the belief of many voters that they are essentially disenfranchised no matter the party they support. Politics seems designed to serve the interests of a small moneyed class instead of populations at large. Attacking speech, farms, and national traditions is not likely to engender widespread support. Neither is the wholesale importation of people who are often hostile to the ways of the host country.
its annoying to read an essay which turns on the rise of “populism” without any attempt to define what the word means.
You can be anything as long as you’re a centrist. If anything, the centrist can hold.
The Popcons are the British expression of a neoliberal turn in populism. These Milleiists no longer want the votes of the left behind, but instead are turning back to the barrow boys and Essex men of the 1980s.