As a member of Generation Z from Britain, my entire adult life has been marked by political upheaval. When I awoke on the morning of June 24, 2016, the day after the Brexit vote, I felt as though I had followed Alice down the rabbit hole and into a new country. Though I was happy that my side of the referendum had won, I was shocked by the palpable sense of social tension I could feel everywhere I went—from my street to the local grocery store, it felt like an eruption was about to take place. It was evident back then, even to a young eighteen-year-old like myself, that something was about to fundamentally change—if it hadn’t done so already—in British politics. Particularly on the political right, a new beast was forming in the wake of Nigel Farage’s UKIP (UK Independence Party) and Brexit successes. Right-wing populism had arrived, and it did so with a bang. Little did I expect, however, that in 2024 I would be watching riots that were fuelled by misinformation, predominately spread on social media by right-wing populist accounts and figures, unravel up and down the country. But how did this all happen?

　　In his latest book, Values, Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics, Matthew Goodwin argues that the reason Britain has experienced a short flurry of populist uprisings in recent years—UKIP, Brexit, the 2019 General Election—is because there has been a political realignment across the entire country. Members of the working class are, on average, sceptical of mass immigration, supported Brexit, and lean left on many economic issues. A core political issue here, Goodwin correctly notes, is that the “elites,” politicians, and bureaucrats tend not to reflect these people’s interests or desires. If anything, they strongly oppose them. Immigration is an obvious example of this, where consecutive governments have been elected on the promise of lowering net-migration, only for net-migration to continuously climb to record-breaking highs. The result of this realignment has been bursts of populism, and it appears as though it is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

　　Most conservative circles—as far as I can tell—have accepted Goodwin’s diagnosis, and understandably so. Even the Conservative Party, though they did not act upon it in tangible policy, adopted a certain amount of populist rhetoric. This was made clear in both Rishi Sunak’s and Suella Braverman’s 2023 Party Conference speeches. Sunak, seemingly forgetting that he was the Prime Minister and leader of a Party that had been in power for over a decade, lamented decades of “the status quo” in liberal politics. As for Braverman, she too appeared to suffer from a bout of Tory amnesia, scorning the immigration policy that she was literally in charge of overseeing. Meanwhile, outside of the Tory party, many conservative writers, journalists, and intellectuals propose that the solution to this political realignment is to simply take whatever policies are popular in the polls and run with them.

　　Is the conservative populist response to public angst and anxiety not like that of Mr. Bennet’s teasing response to Mrs. Bennet in the first chapter of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice: “You mistake me, my dear. I have a high respect for your nerves. They are my old friends. I have heard you mention them with consideration these twenty years at least.”

　　Populist conservatives are well acquainted with the nerves of the citizenry. Those anxieties fuel many conservatives as they seek to define themselves simply in opposition to something (i.e. the out-of-touch establishment), rather than in positive terms of what conservatism can offer people beyond a reaction to our political enemies. Today, issues like immigration and “wokeness” risk becoming to conservatives what mothers are to Sigmund Freud: an all-consuming start and end point of theory and practice, from which one can never deny or escape, even if one insists upon doing so.

　　Although we should accept Goodwin’s diagnosis of the problem, conservatives should not embrace populism as a solution to it. What is needed to address this realignment is not a populist drive by conservatives, but rather a radical alteration of the very system of British politics. It is not enough to have Mr. Bennet’s “high respect” for the nerves of the electorate; we must instead seek to address the nerves. What is needed is a fundamental shift in person-to-person community building, rediscovering the sense of local community and solidarity—the sense of belonging—that has disappeared from modern society.

　　Let us use the example of mass immigration. According to the most recent YouGov polls, 85 percent of Brits think that the government is “handling the issue of immigration” badly, whereas 66 percent of Brits think immigration has been “too high” over the past 10 years, compared to only 17 percent who believe it has been “about right.” The matter of immigration is clearly where the electorate and Westminster are most at odds with each other, and the result of this has been immigration becoming the centre point around which conservative and right-wing populists rally. Plenty of the concerns surrounding the effects of mass migration are valid. In typical fashion, however, right-wing populists have often resorted to nasty rhetoric surrounding migrants. Take, for example, Rod Dreher’s comments that the only way to stop illegal migration in Europe and the USA is for governments to “apply lethal force to these invaders.” Dreher did not even stop to consider alternative options, even forced deportation or a Rwanda-style scheme. He jumped straight to language of violence and invasion.

　　We must always remember, I believe, the message that all people are made in the image of God. We do not need to sacrifice the Christian command to recognise all people as children in God at the altar of opposing hyper-globalisation. What we see in this populist dehumanising of the migrant “other” is a disintegration of the notion of universal personhood; that all people, even when they commit crimes, are owed a certain level of human dignity.

　　What is needed to address this realignment is not a populist drive by conservatives, but rather a radical alteration of the very system of British politics.

　　There is perhaps no better example of this disintegration of personhood among the populists than the recent rioting scenes we are seeing up and down the country. Triggered by misinformation regarding the nationality and religion of the recent Southport murderer, far-right rioters have taken to the streets in several cities to bombard police officers and civilian buildings with whatever objects they can find. Perhaps most shockingly of all, the misinformation surrounding the Southport murders resulted in a siege at the local mosque, with worshippers trapped inside as a violent, racist mob set fire to cars and pelted rocks at the building. For conservatives, who so often proclaim to be champions of law and order, you would imagine that there would be no justifying such evil behaviour. On the contrary.

　　Let us return to Matthew Goodwin, who penned a piece on his Substack and in true conservative populist fashion decided to become acquainted with the nerves of the rioters:

　　The British people need to feel safe in their own country. And we need to do this by pressuring our leaders to do whatever is necessary to regain control of our broken borders, dramatically lower the pace of immigration, and reassert law and order.

　　The carnage and chaos unfolding before our eyes is not just about “misinformation,” “disinformation,” social media, or “far-right thuggery.” It is about an elite consensus in this country, presided over by Left and Right, visibly breaking down before our eyes.

　　I do not wish to single out Goodwin, but unfortunately, his recent articles serve as a prime example of the problem with right-wing or conservative populism. The problem here is two-fold. First, the populists significantly downplay the horror that is at hand. Throughout Goodwin’s articles, there is much emphasis on the violence of people he wishes to (often justifiably) criticise, whilst simultaneously omitting all the gritty details of the acts of those he refers to as being merely “criticised” by the liberal “political class” as being extremists. Beyond a couple of one-sentence throat-clearing condemnations, the overwhelming majority of Goodwin’s focus remains on the political factors that he views as having fuelled the rioters’ motivations. In fact, Goodwin goes as far as asking the question “What do you expect ordinary British people to do given the deeply alarming things that are now unfolding around them, in their country, on a daily basis?” as though those people “protesting,” to use Goodwin’s choice of description, are somehow accurate representations of the “ordinary British people.”

　　In reality, the people rioting (and those supporting it) are by no means a reflection of an “ordinary” working-class British person. For example, police have confirmed that supporters of the English Defence League (a far-right group with a history of violence) had been involved in the riots in Southport. One cannot help but think that, despite their claims to champion the working class, the populists who think hooded people smashing their neighbours’ windows and laying siege to a mosque full of innocents is the behaviour of ‘ordinary’ Brits might just be the ones making classist caricatures here.

　　The second issue with the populist response is that they take a tiny seed of truth and attempt to grow entire forests with it. It is certainly true that many (likely even a majority) of people have been ignored by the political elites on matters such as (legal and illegal) migration, and this is an issue that simply needs addressing. However, does this justify violent attacks upon groups of innocent civilians, such as those in Southport mosque? Can you blame Islamic migration for murders committed by a non-Muslim man who was born in Cardiff (even if his parents were born abroad)? In a moral and sane world, absolutely not.

　　The right-wing populist response to the recent riots is a prime example of the disintegration of personhood. Notions of community, morality, and law have been sacrificed at the altar of narrative weaving. The truth only matters and people only have value and dignity in accordance to how useful they are to the narrative. Whether or not victims of the rioting have even done anything to have directly stoked that anger is irrelevant—what matters most to populists is bulking their narrative, regardless of the costs. There are no people, no persons, only narrative. It is vulgar political egoism, void of any moral consistency or virtue.

　　Commentators, such as Goodwin, are correct to point out the wide-ranging public anger on many issues. But it is not the role of academics, politicians, and commentators to play the role of Mr. Bennet by acquainting themselves with the nerves of the populace. There is such a thing as immoral, disproportionate backlash, however angry one may be. Public figures have the platform to help direct these anxieties down more intelligent, civil, and moral avenues. It is their duty to do precisely that.

　　At this crossroads, the conservative movement must ask itself one very serious question: does it wish to become acquainted with the nerves or would it rather address them? Conservatism has, or at least should have, prided itself on the organic and the local. Properly understood it is a natural enemy of populism, and conservatives would do well to remove the populist parasite from amongst its midst.