I've been wondering about this topic for a while too, and the simple explanation is that most of the conventional elite in Western countries – by which I mean leading politicians, civil servants, business people, journalists – are liberal oligarchs. They are not interested in running a democratic government, but in running things to their own liking, much like the oligarchs of previous eras and in other places round the world. Of course they have to contend with genuinely democratic mechanics, and the oligarchy is a partial meritocracy, but straightforwardly this is about wielding power and keeping it away from other people
The narrative on the centre left in the UK seems to be:
• When ordinary people support right-wing parties they do so because of disinformation: X.com, GB News, The Sun and The Daily Mail. Why aren't the government and Ofcom doing something about this? Ban X or promote BlueSky, regulate GB News, ban internet anonymity.
• Reform is winning elections because the left-wing vote is split. Labour should move to the left to attract more voters (from the Greens). Alternatively, the government should change the voting system from first-past-the-post to some form of proportional representation.
(Personally, I think these ideas are both semi-workable electoral strategies for the left - some left wing ideas are popular among a lot of voters, and more people vote for left-wing parties than right-wing ones)
• The main reason the UK is in the economic doldrums is Brexit. In order to increase economic growth, we need to have a closer relationship with the EU. Ideally, the government should admit that Brexit was a complete failure and commit to rejoining the EU.
I have not seen or heard anyone on the left use the word "immigration" in explaining the result of the recent local elections, or what Labour ought to do about it. It's as if the idea that immigration could be a legitimate political issue is taboo! There's also no recognition that the left might benefit electorally from being tougher on crime, from dialling back some of it's economically harmful environmentalist ideas, from not making life difficult for motorists, or from reversing some of it's "nanny statism".
Actually, there are a small number of Blue Labour types, and a small number of Labour YIMBYs, but both of those groups are minorities outside the mainstream of the centre-left.
Astute article, Conor. And you’re correct that none of this is going to blow over in the next couple of decades, especially here in America.
Our immigration issues are probably not as heated as they are in Europe, but they are significant. Yet, even though the GOP controls the government, it can’t or won’t reform immigration laws to alleviate some of the problems.
I also think that however populist upset does finally resolve, it will be through a manner—and likely an individual—not on anyone’s radar in 2026.
> in the past, the upper ranks of politics, culture and society would have been formed of people with all kinds of temperaments and all kinds of experience (from the military, industry, from churches…)
This is probably the core of the problem. The People™ will always get lip service, but will never have real power, but the people who are now making up all the elite are just “part of this complete elite” and would probably not be a very important part in a healthy society.
We should also not forget that even if the migration issue, which alone would be a sufficient sickness unto death for our system, but is not remotely alone in our panoply of “sufficient” woes, could be solved, there are multiple crises that cannot ever possibly be fixed democratically, worst of all the pension problem.
The issue here is not that boomers are bad, although they are, or that the later generations are lazy, stupid, and feckless, although we are, but that much too much has been promised to too many people and the means to service these debts are not around. The closest any democratically legitimised solution is likely to come is making “the rich” pay (i.e. confiscation and/or capital and personal flight, followed by sustained poverty, and the pensioners starving just the same, only a year later).
So the best thing that could probably happen to any western country at this point is that some implausibly wise and benevolent part of the other constituent parts of a more “normal” elite, namely the part that is generally tasked with making decisions and making them stick physically, absent studies or voluntary cooperation, take over and tries to find some distribution of assets in this present bankruptcy that hopefully minimises pain and maximises the sustainability of productivity of what’s left afterwards, and then removes obstacles to build and grow out of this rut.
Not only is this very unlikely as an event, if it was done in one country, the fox-elites in the other “liberal” “democracies” would use everything at their disposal to make it fail and break.
It is very hard to see a way from here to anywhere much at all.
I don't care too much about Greenland. As I understand it the majority that live there don't consider themselves Danes or Europeans and might well have been bewildered to see the likes of Merz and Starmer white knighting for them.
Trump's threats and boasts about it were crass and ridiculous, as is most of what he is saying during this Iran war. But is really shouldn't matter to right wingers in other countries. The success of a nationalist party in Britain, Germany or Ireland is not contingent upon similar parties being in power elsewhere. It can be helpful; I'm sure it would be easier for Britain to 'stop the boats' if Le Pen was in power in France, but we can do it regardless with the necessary political will.
If a nationalist party cannot succeed without help from other countries, that undermines the entire concept of nationalism.
You may well be right that populists such as Reform are just not going to do the necessary level of preparation for government. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking about how easy it is going to be to undo the Blarite constitution.
Some people on the online right have done some deep thinking and argue that, for example, leaving the ECHR is just not doable. Such as this Pete North article:
Pete seems to think we don't actually need to get rid of the ECHR and that a right wing government could do what is necessary without demolishing the entire Blob system. I am doubtful about that. The system is a set of institutions that have veto power, that are in theory 'neutral' but are packed with leftist activists.
I could see Farage bringing forward legislation to end DEI, illegal immigration and Net Zero, spend 2 years battling to get it through the House of Lords, and then a court case brought by an NGO reaches the Supreme Court or The European one, and a judge simply rules that all Reform's legislation is 'unlawful'.
I've been wondering about this topic for a while too, and the simple explanation is that most of the conventional elite in Western countries – by which I mean leading politicians, civil servants, business people, journalists – are liberal oligarchs. They are not interested in running a democratic government, but in running things to their own liking, much like the oligarchs of previous eras and in other places round the world. Of course they have to contend with genuinely democratic mechanics, and the oligarchy is a partial meritocracy, but straightforwardly this is about wielding power and keeping it away from other people
The narrative on the centre left in the UK seems to be:
• When ordinary people support right-wing parties they do so because of disinformation: X.com, GB News, The Sun and The Daily Mail. Why aren't the government and Ofcom doing something about this? Ban X or promote BlueSky, regulate GB News, ban internet anonymity.
• Reform is winning elections because the left-wing vote is split. Labour should move to the left to attract more voters (from the Greens). Alternatively, the government should change the voting system from first-past-the-post to some form of proportional representation.
(Personally, I think these ideas are both semi-workable electoral strategies for the left - some left wing ideas are popular among a lot of voters, and more people vote for left-wing parties than right-wing ones)
• The main reason the UK is in the economic doldrums is Brexit. In order to increase economic growth, we need to have a closer relationship with the EU. Ideally, the government should admit that Brexit was a complete failure and commit to rejoining the EU.
I have not seen or heard anyone on the left use the word "immigration" in explaining the result of the recent local elections, or what Labour ought to do about it. It's as if the idea that immigration could be a legitimate political issue is taboo! There's also no recognition that the left might benefit electorally from being tougher on crime, from dialling back some of it's economically harmful environmentalist ideas, from not making life difficult for motorists, or from reversing some of it's "nanny statism".
Actually, there are a small number of Blue Labour types, and a small number of Labour YIMBYs, but both of those groups are minorities outside the mainstream of the centre-left.
Astute article, Conor. And you’re correct that none of this is going to blow over in the next couple of decades, especially here in America.
Our immigration issues are probably not as heated as they are in Europe, but they are significant. Yet, even though the GOP controls the government, it can’t or won’t reform immigration laws to alleviate some of the problems.
I also think that however populist upset does finally resolve, it will be through a manner—and likely an individual—not on anyone’s radar in 2026.
> in the past, the upper ranks of politics, culture and society would have been formed of people with all kinds of temperaments and all kinds of experience (from the military, industry, from churches…)
This is probably the core of the problem. The People™ will always get lip service, but will never have real power, but the people who are now making up all the elite are just “part of this complete elite” and would probably not be a very important part in a healthy society.
We should also not forget that even if the migration issue, which alone would be a sufficient sickness unto death for our system, but is not remotely alone in our panoply of “sufficient” woes, could be solved, there are multiple crises that cannot ever possibly be fixed democratically, worst of all the pension problem.
The issue here is not that boomers are bad, although they are, or that the later generations are lazy, stupid, and feckless, although we are, but that much too much has been promised to too many people and the means to service these debts are not around. The closest any democratically legitimised solution is likely to come is making “the rich” pay (i.e. confiscation and/or capital and personal flight, followed by sustained poverty, and the pensioners starving just the same, only a year later).
So the best thing that could probably happen to any western country at this point is that some implausibly wise and benevolent part of the other constituent parts of a more “normal” elite, namely the part that is generally tasked with making decisions and making them stick physically, absent studies or voluntary cooperation, take over and tries to find some distribution of assets in this present bankruptcy that hopefully minimises pain and maximises the sustainability of productivity of what’s left afterwards, and then removes obstacles to build and grow out of this rut.
Not only is this very unlikely as an event, if it was done in one country, the fox-elites in the other “liberal” “democracies” would use everything at their disposal to make it fail and break.
It is very hard to see a way from here to anywhere much at all.
I don't care too much about Greenland. As I understand it the majority that live there don't consider themselves Danes or Europeans and might well have been bewildered to see the likes of Merz and Starmer white knighting for them.
Trump's threats and boasts about it were crass and ridiculous, as is most of what he is saying during this Iran war. But is really shouldn't matter to right wingers in other countries. The success of a nationalist party in Britain, Germany or Ireland is not contingent upon similar parties being in power elsewhere. It can be helpful; I'm sure it would be easier for Britain to 'stop the boats' if Le Pen was in power in France, but we can do it regardless with the necessary political will.
If a nationalist party cannot succeed without help from other countries, that undermines the entire concept of nationalism.
Really good analysis.
You may well be right that populists such as Reform are just not going to do the necessary level of preparation for government. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking about how easy it is going to be to undo the Blarite constitution.
Some people on the online right have done some deep thinking and argue that, for example, leaving the ECHR is just not doable. Such as this Pete North article:
https://www.northernvariant.co.uk/p/echr-a-dose-of-realism
Pete seems to think we don't actually need to get rid of the ECHR and that a right wing government could do what is necessary without demolishing the entire Blob system. I am doubtful about that. The system is a set of institutions that have veto power, that are in theory 'neutral' but are packed with leftist activists.
I could see Farage bringing forward legislation to end DEI, illegal immigration and Net Zero, spend 2 years battling to get it through the House of Lords, and then a court case brought by an NGO reaches the Supreme Court or The European one, and a judge simply rules that all Reform's legislation is 'unlawful'.
Hello Conor. Just wondering what you meant by "universally loathed Israeli government". Universally loathed in Ireland? Or Europe? Or everywhere?