Henry Dumont is a graduate in History from the University of Bristol with a focus on English early modern political philosophy and constitutionalism. 

A few weeks ago, while attending The Spectator Young Readers Garden Party, I often found myself at odds with supporters of Reform UK. I was surprised at the utter contempt with which I was met with for saying something I assumed was a given. Namely, the suggestion that Farage is a populist and Reform are a populist party. How dare I say something so malicious! I must admit, I was caught off guard, having assumed at the least that his supporters and I were in agreement on this basic point.

But such a response begged the question – what is the problem with populism?  

Well, the fact that these people were so hostile to me labelling their leader a populist speaks for itself. If being a populist was a good thing, both Nigel and his supporters would surely be frolicking around, boasting of such a label.

Alas, Farage himself stated during a Channel 4 interview that he cannot possibly be a populist as he had championed “”. But the truth is that Farage’s rhetoric (even here) is textbook populist sophistry.

This ‘sophistry problem’ within Farage’s strand of populism is most obvious when explored against public forms of academic disciplines.  

Take Christopher Hitchens, for instance. By all means, an excellent speaker and an engaging writer of prose – but a public philosopher moreso than an academic one. I have read Hitchens, listened to his debates, and sometimes agree with what he says. Yet I am aware that for all the enjoyment he provides, he is a far cry from the sort of individual you would expect to find employed as a scholar of philosophy.

 After all, he only achieved a third-class degree from Oxford, having been to concern himself with academic study. Couple this with the fact that his subsequent association with US universities has been in a literary or journalistic capacity, and it becomes astoundingly clear that he was not some academically-rooted philosopher king.

The problem with Hitchens’ style of popular or public philosophy is that he too often relied on extremes. In academia, to form a proper scholarly argument is to engage not only with the most relevant but also the strongest of positions that might be given by those of differing perspectives. Hitchens rarely did so.  

This is somewhat justified in the context, given he provided a entertaining way to unwind, offering a series of funny quips, anecdotes and literary excellence. He may even give you some arguments to plagiarise in a heated debate down the pub. However, a casual reader of Hitchens is unlikely to drastically alter the intellectual philosophical landscape on the back of books and debates which ultimately act as entertainment rather than serious education.  

The sophistic style of debate, in the sense it deals in plausible but deceptive arguments using extremes, should not be welcome in the politics of any serious democratic nation.  

Farage’s arguments are too often lacklustre and return mostly to the abstract notion of institutional failure or the immigration crisis. This iteration of populism lacks serious ideological grounding. populism is sophistic.  

Twice, separately, on the night of this event, I was met with the same absurd response: “If Farage is a populist, then so was Churchill”. This conflating of ‘popular’ with ‘populism’ demonstrates my point entirely.

No serious historian would suggest such a thing. In fact, historiographical consensus puts Churchill firmly in the category of an elitist – the very opposite of a populist. Yet that is the problem. At every turn, populists and their followers seem to rely on sophistry. It is bold, it is brash and it might make you think ‘that sounds like it could be true’, but it is grounded in extremes and an utter lack of genuine ideological security.  

The supposedly horrid party institutions which make up our fracturing two-party system bear the crucial check that is an obligation to their predecessors. Be it Burke or Disraeli or Thatcher. Or Atlee or Crosland or Blair. They are bound to something with historical ideological roots and developed through and from at least a century of thinkers.  

Modern populism has nothing serious of the sort. The problem is therefore that this format of populism is reactionary and too often rooted in the cult of the individual, as opposed to serious ideological positioning. Populism is not an intellectual movement but the opposite. It is a rabble-rousing ploy which feeds off dissatisfaction and deprivation with few serious ideas on how to fix it. No government should be formed from such a flimsy ideological basis.  

That same evening, I later declared I feared for the Lords, only to receive the misguided reply that because Farage was now a “” he would consider nothing of the sort. The next day his speech at the Reform Conference told a different story. He openly declared his willingness to disband the institution.

To suggest the removal of what is ultimately the greatest check that the nation has on the otherwise potentially unlimited power of elected government is frightfully inconsistent with our constitutional conventions. It is no serious policy proposal, nor is it small-c conservative. Rather, it appears to have been employed in attempt at getting a rise out of the crowd and to spew the only major defining feature of populist ideology: the notion of the people versus the establishment.  

In light of this, that people still dare claim that the Conservatives and Reform are spawned from the same ideological starting point is ridiculous – Farage may be right wing, but he will never be conservative. The state without some means of change is indeed without the means of its conservation. But a potential government which sees little value in its institutions, whatever problems they might currently face, is one destined for failure. Reform may do well at diagnosing problems, but seem to struggle with serious, conservative solutions.

At the close of the evening, one final Farage fan responded to my question over the donation scandals with something along the lines of “yep that’s a bit fishy but I distrust the institutions more”.

Yet, as I see it, to gamble on a one-man band who plans to disband institutional and ideological checks in favour of his own personal will is dangerous. We need more serious politicians, not some silly little character, pint of bitter in one hand and a cigarette in the other, offering promises of a land of milk and honey.