Dissident Congress website

Britain under Populism

A vision of a Populist future by Russell White

Many readers of Populist Press, both old and new, will perhaps be wondering what everyday life would be like under Populism. Sometimes a "what we stand for" list fails to conjure up an image of a cohesive society; it is more a menu of the sort of policies we would wish to implement to achieve an end result, rather than the end result itself. The artist knows what he wishes to paint, he chooses his colours carefully, but only when the end product is displayed can his work be truly appreciated...

The voter has grown accustomed to politicians without the guidance of a world-view. Our template is Britain of the past (especially the 1950s) as an ideal as to how society should be organised and how personal relationships are conducted... a better role model would be hard to find.

It does not require a great leap of imagination to envisage a traditional society, yet in which one still has heart transplant operations, computers, compact discs, and recycling facilities (to name but a few modern inventions). Few would wish to return to a society without Chinese restaurants, holidays abroad, or TV games. Therefore we do not seek a facsimile or replica (for even if such a thing were possible many voters would reject it). But Populists are interested in human institutions and interaction, in the mass media and the financial system - all of which, if reformed or improved, can greatly reduce the sum of human misery that we see today.

How could people's everyday lives be made happier? After all, that is what politics should be all about - not merely an exercise in balancing the books (important though that is). Rolling back the relentless consumerism of the past few decades would show that a "people centred", rather than "money centred" ethos could once again govern our public life. How often do we see commercialism intrude upon our senses nowadays? Take sport, for example. Is football any better for having company logos splattered over player's shirts? Gamesmanship has replaced sportsmanship, amateurs became professionals, and clubs are now companies on the Stock Exchange.

It seems that everywhere one looks someone is trying to sell you something. Most insidiously, the credit companies are let loose upon those whose incomes will never allow them to repay their debts. Those on fixed incomes, such as housewives, are offered credit cards which their husbands are then liable for. This leads to marital discord and debt. The sum of human misery can be partly accounted to the spivs and loan sharks that blight our High Streets and small ads columns in the newspapers. Populists are at war with easy credit, commercialism, and "sponsorship". The consumer society leads to inbuilt obsolescence as goods are designed to last only for a few years. We live in a society of contradiction. We are encouraged to take our goods down to the recycling centre, yet new goods are not built to last. If they were then there would be less need to recycle...

Under Populism the pace of life would gradually become slower, more rewarding and enriching. We definitely do not wish to see the 24 hour society lauded by modernists on all sides of the political debate. Why would anyone wish to go shopping at three o'clock in the morning anyway? It may be suitable for shops surrounding depots where night shifts are worked, but most people do not work nights so there is no need for it nationally. The task is to convince people that "good things come to those who wait", that the selfish me-first society which started in the late 1960s is unsustainable and undesirable, and to explain that freedom for one man can mean servitude for another. With every call for 24 hour opening there are more fractured relationships and unsocial hours being worked.

Our task is to roll back the money culture and replace it with people culture, whereby personal traits and deeds are of more importance than the size of one's bank account (again inflated by credit). Populism is a world view, meaning that one policy leads seamlessly and logically into another.


When the old parties and their representatives talk about ethics they mean liberal political correctness. Our ethics are fiscal and stem from custom and tradition. That is why we never cease to speak out when the money men and developers seek to pull down an historic building or build on the countryside. Their ideology is based on greed in its basest form. When they talk about letting in migrants so that they can pay for the pensioners of the future we know it is because they won't force the metropolitan elite to fork out for the upkeep of their parent's and grandparent's generation. When they speak of a "skills shortage" it is because training has been underfunded for decades.

Those on the right would previously have dismissed such sentiments as the ideas of socialist dinosaurs, but nowadays many are questioning the very nature of our economic system and whether it is in any way compatible with the traditional society both they (and we) seek.

The average person stands to benefit greatly from a society in which reward is related to effort and not speculation. Imagine a society where property is regarded more as a possession than an investment, where houses are homes and where there are some things such as personal integrity and freedom which don't have a price tag attached to them. Could "chequebook journalism" or "kiss and tell" stories thrive in our national daily press under such a climate? Many Christian groups have campaigned for morality only in a framework set by faith, but the Christian-ethical approach to economics has an appeal far beyond churchgoers. Perhaps Populists are calling for a Christian economic order, which if carried out "root and branch" would stem into all other facets of our daily lives.

The old gang stock response is always "how do you propose to pay for all this?". Our unapologetic answer is that we would adjust the tax rates to suit the policy, not set the policy after declaring the tax rates! It is about priorities and goals. If having bus conductors, park keepers, and lavatory attendants leads to better functioning public services and a happier society we should pay for them up front and then watch the savings filter through in the form of less fare dodging, reduced vandalism, and safer parks where people can walk freely. Under funded and undermanned Britain could also do with a large injection of common sense. We ALL lack common sense at times but for an entire nation it is suicide on a grand scale...

Personal Freedom

The economic and legal structure imposed by the liberal-left means that Britain, like the USA, is increasingly a lawyer's paradise. No, we're not speaking of the old fashioned trusty family lawyer who served generations of clients. The lawyers who cause a threat to our society are the crusaders who specialise in political causes such as "women's rights", "police accountability", and what is euphemistically termed "family law". These new avengers operate in a different dimension to we mere mortals! Like the Greek Gods of old, they believe that they and only they can decide how best we can live our lives. These politically correct types, like Michael Mansfield, Helena Kennedy, and Cherie Blair (and there will be many more like these to come) exist to protect us from ourselves. These are political lawyers. Their self-importance means that disputes over a neighbour's fence are of little interest to them. The great and the good wish to intervene into the key areas of our lives, such as whether or not we may smack our children, whether we may smoke (in public or private!) and even to regulate our right to free association, as with the furore over "men only cricket clubs".

One of the fundamental differences the ordinary person would notice within months of a Populist style government would be the systematic dismantling of political correctness, feminism, and multiculturalism. Starting with the repeal of the legislation which set up the institutions in their name, and continuing with the rooting out of anti-British propaganda in schools and the mass media the public would at last feel free to speak out. It cannot be said by many today that discrimination truly exists with the myriad of anti-racism and anti-sexism legislation in place. A lot of the existing antagonisms between different races and sexes would be alleviated as genuine freedom returned to Great Britain. Laws which govern / outlaw free speech and association cannot be tolerated in a free society. If they cannot legislate away one's every thought they certainly try to make one feel guilty for thinking it. Populists reject the concept of thought crime...

An end to yob culture

One of the most frightening features of modern life is the emergence of the "yob society" in which individuals act boorishly with no concern for the rights of others. Populists are strongly opposed to thuggery in all its forms. These are a daily blight on our lives and include:

  • Use of obscene language in public and in the mass media.
  • Abuse of individuals by shouting out of cars, shoving in queues, and general loutish behaviour.
  • Binge-drinking and drug culture.
  • Vandalism and graffiti.
  • Football hooliganism and the bad loser mentality of sports fans.
  • Brusque, impatient behaviour when shopping or travelling (especially by car; "road rage").

Far from banning smacking we should be bringing back the birch for perpetrators of some of the above, as part of the punishment. Why have government initiatives on CCTV, ID cards, and "community policing" if nothing is done when the culprits are caught? Indeed using the fight against crime as an excuse for ID cards is perhaps a smokescreen for yet another means of keeping tabs upon law-abiding subjects who deviate from the political order of the day.

The bitter irony is that so-called "liberals" and "socialists" have opposed corporal punishment for years, yet who are the perennial victims of the yob society? They are the urban poor, sick, old, and young...indeed the very people the Left claim to care for. What the Americans call "tough love" is needed on a national scale. To have a gentler, kinder, and safer society we have to introduce draconian hardline policies on crime and disorder. It means sacking lax judges and weeding out liberalism from our public life. But the process of "weeding out" should not be done by a hellish 1984 Big Brother dictator figure, nor by a McCarthyite zealot. There should be no show trials, no book banning. It should be the ordinary people who have endured political correctness and crime for so long who make the change...

The law-abiding majority should via peer pressure and referendum take the initiative in creating a decent society about which we can be proud. It cuts across class, sex, or race. Most of us, wherever we live, and however we live, have a vested interest in defeating crime and the yob society.

Let the People Decide

Populism - as the name suggests - is all about the will of the people. Majority rights have been suppressed for too long in the face of the minority rights movement (usually controlled not by the minority themselves but by disaffected leftists with an ulterior motive). People power can take many forms whether through the continuation of our customs (such as the fight to allow traders to use imperial measurements) or by economic democracy (through breaking up the power of big business and multinationals and by supporting small businesses). The aim is to give government to ordinary people for the first time in our history. The Swiss have a referendum system that could be imported to our shores. As with the fight against political correctness, the use of the referendum would create a society in which only the diehard fanatic would stand opposed to the will of the people. We know that the man in the street is a small "c" conservative and naturally cautious about social change. Otherwise, the liberal powers that be would not oppose giving us a vote more than a few times in our lives so vehemently. The counterbalance between hardline law and order politics and greater political freedom is one of the reasons why a Populist model of society is so much more attractive than so-called "liberal democracy". It promotes social justice without lurching towards the nanny state (which hatched the mouldy egg of political correctness). The greed ethic, so alien to our Christian tradition would be replaced by a healthy respect for the needs of families and not the needs of multinationals.

A broader outlook

Anti-EU parties have been (rightly) criticised for implying that "everything will come right once we leave the EU". Yet there is so much more wrong with this country than can be cured only by leaving the EU. Once a Populist Party government left the EU there would be a long list of problems to be tackled, as well as providing support for opponents of the EU in the remaining member states. People see the EU as an abstract body, which does not touch their lives directly the way crime and poor public services have. Only a broad appeal will build the mass movement to rescue our land.