Of course, not all Brits hate Donald Trump. I suspect quite a few Reform voters and Farage fans hold him in quite high esteem as he represents all the values they hold dear. There is a huge irony in this because Trump is an affront to many true British values; values you would expect Reform’s faux Christian nationalism (a contradiction in terms as it is) to respect rather than parody.
I’ve been reminded recently of the brilliant profile of Trump written by a British guy, named Nate White, to this question on Twitter/X:
“Why do many British people not like Donald Trump?”
His response is way better than anything I could have come up with:
A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.
Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.
Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.
There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.
And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.
So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:
• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.
This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump.
And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumpfuls of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created?’ If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.
Bravo!
Most of our right-wing scumbags, as much as they aspire to Trump’s position of power and largely share his values and agenda, are not quite as bad as Trump. Farage is more articulate, Johnson is better read, Truss is no sexual predator, Yaxley-Lennon shows no signs of dementia, Badenoch is not (quite) a white supremacist.
These disgusting people all play the populist tunes. Right‑wing populism is a broad, trans‑national phenomenon, but scholars and observers consistently identify several recurring “threads” that shape its discourse and appeal. While the exact mix varies from country to country, the following elements tend to appear together in most right‑wing populist movements:
1. Anti‑elitist / “People vs. Establishment” Narrative
- Core claim: A morally pure, homogeneous “people” is being betrayed by corrupt, out‑of‑touch elites (politicians, bureaucrats, mainstream media, academia, global institutions).
- Rhetorical function: Positions the movement as the authentic voice of ordinary citizens, justifying a demand for “real” representation and often for sweeping institutional reforms.
2. Nativism and Cultural Identity
- Emphasis on national/ethnic homogeneity: Populists stress a historic, cultural, or linguistic identity that they argue is under threat.
- Us‑vs‑them framing: Immigrants, minorities, or culturally distinct groups are portrayed as outsiders who dilute or endanger the nation’s character.
- Cultural conservatism: Defence of traditional values (family, religion, language) against perceived liberal or progressive erosion.
3. Opposition to Immigration and Multiculturalism
- Security and economic arguments: Migrants are framed as competitors for jobs, welfare resources, or as security risks.
- Symbolic dimension: Immigration becomes a proxy for broader anxieties about change, loss of control, and the perceived “globalist” agenda.
4. Scepticism of Globalization and International Institutions
- Economic protectionism: Calls for tariffs, trade barriers, or “fair‑trade” policies to protect domestic industries and workers.
- Political sovereignty: Critique of supranational bodies (EU, UN, WTO) as eroding national decision‑making power.
- Narrative of “global elite”: Global financial or technocratic elites are blamed for economic dislocation and social unrest.
5. Law‑and‑Order Emphasis
- Strong‑hand governance: Advocacy for tougher policing, stricter criminal penalties, and decisive executive authority.
- Security framing: Links crime, terrorism, or social disorder to immigration or multicultural policies, reinforcing a “protect the people” stance.
6. Charismatic Leadership and Direct Communication
- Personalist style: Leaders present themselves as outsiders who bypass traditional party structures and speak directly to the public (often via social media).
- Simplified messaging: Slogans, catchphrases, and emotionally charged language replace nuanced policy debate, making the narrative easy to spread.
7. Economic Populism Coupled with Cultural Conservatism
- “Left‑right blend”: While socially conservative, many right‑wing populists adopt economically redistributive rhetoric (e.g., “the rich are exploiting the common folk”) to broaden appeal.
- Welfare chauvinism: Support for social benefits is conditioned on national belonging—welfare for “the people,” not for immigrants or foreigners.
8. Conspiracy‑Oriented Worldview (Variable Intensity)
- Hidden agendas: Allegations that hidden forces (global financiers, secret cabals, foreign powers) manipulate events behind the scenes.
- Media distrust: Mainstream outlets are dismissed as part of the conspiracy, reinforcing reliance on alternative information channels.
9. Reaction to Perceived Moral Decline
- Cultural backlash: Opposition to progressive social changes (e.g., LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality measures) framed as defending “traditional morals.”
- Nostalgia for a “golden age”: Idealizing a past era when the nation was supposedly more cohesive, prosperous, and morally upright.
How These Threads Interact
- Synergy: Anti‑elitism fuels distrust of both domestic institutions and international bodies, while nativist sentiment provides a clear “other” to blame for societal problems.
- Regional variation: In Europe, the immigration/nativist component is often dominant; in Latin America, anti‑globalization and anti‑establishment rhetoric may take precedence; in the United States, a mix of cultural conservatism, law‑and‑order, and economic populism is typical.
- Policy outcomes: The combination often leads to proposals for stricter border controls, reduced influence of supranational entities, deregulation of certain economic sectors, and expanded executive powers.
Takeaway
Right‑wing populism is not monolithic, but its most common threads revolve around a people‑versus‑elite narrative, defense of a homogeneous national identity, opposition to immigration and globalization, law‑and‑order emphasis, and charismatic, direct leadership. Understanding these recurring themes helps explain why such movements can adapt to diverse political contexts while maintaining a recognizable ideological core.
And what does this all translate into when they get into power? Taking a closer look at Trump, Orban, Meloni, Modi, Erdogan, Milei, et al, shows us what to expect when they get into power.
| Populist Thread | How It Shows Up in Government Action | Illustrative Examples (generic) |
| Anti‑elitist “people vs establishment” | • Frequent attacks on civil servants, judges, and independent agencies as “out‑of‑touch elites”. • Attempts to centralise decision‑making in the executive or in a charismatic leader’s office. • Use of referenda or “direct democracy” mechanisms to bypass parliamentary debate. | A prime‑minister appoints loyalists to key ministries, dismisses senior career officials, and calls a national vote on a flagship policy. |
| Nativism & cultural identity | • Tightening citizenship, language, and integration requirements. • Symbolic legislation that foregrounds national symbols (flags, anthems, holidays). • Policies that privilege “native” cultural practices in education and public broadcasting. | Laws mandating that school curricula teach a “national heritage” module and that public broadcasters allocate a minimum percentage of airtime to locally produced content. |
| Opposition to immigration & multiculturalism | • Rapidly enacted border‑control measures (e.g., visa bans, asylum‑procedure shortcuts). • Reduction or elimination of pathways for family reunification. • Public‑funded campaigns that frame migrants as security/economic threats. | Introduction of a “fast‑track” deportation procedure for undocumented arrivals and a law restricting the number of work permits issued annually. |
| Scepticism of globalization & supranational bodies | • Withdrawal from or renegotiation of trade agreements, EU‑style treaties, or multinational accords. • Promotion of “economic sovereignty” through tariffs, subsidies for domestic producers, or state‑owned enterprises. • Creation of parallel national regulatory frameworks that override international standards. | Imposing import duties on foreign agricultural products while subsidising local farmers and filing a formal objection to a regional trade bloc’s environmental directive. |
| Law‑and‑order emphasis | • Expansion of police powers, longer detention periods, and harsher sentencing guidelines. • Creation of special courts or tribunals for “national security” or “public order” cases. • Public‑security rhetoric used to justify emergency decrees. | Passing a law that allows police to conduct searches without a warrant in designated “high‑risk” zones and establishing a “national security court” with expedited procedures. |
| Charismatic leadership & direct communication | • Centralised decision‑making around a single figure; frequent use of social media, rallies, and televised addresses to set the agenda. • Bypassing traditional party structures or legislative committees in favour of “executive orders”. • Personal loyalty becomes a key criterion for appointments. | The head of state issues a series of executive decrees on economic reform, each announced via a live broadcast rather than parliamentary debate. |
| Economic populism paired with cultural conservatism | • Welfare programmes targeted specifically at native citizens (“welfare chauvinism”). • Protectionist fiscal policies combined with tax cuts for small‑business owners seen as “the backbone of the nation”. • Subsidies for industries tied to national identity (e.g., agriculture, mining). | Introducing a “citizen benefit” that grants a cash allowance to families with three or more children who are citizens, while cutting benefits for non‑citizen residents. |
| Conspiracy‑oriented worldview | • Legislative inquiries or investigations aimed at “foreign influence” networks, often lacking transparent evidence. • Restrictions on NGOs, foreign‑funded media, or academic institutions labelled as “agents of the global elite”. • Use of secrecy or classified briefings to reinforce the narrative of hidden threats. | Enacting a law that requires NGOs receiving foreign funding to disclose donors publicly and subjects them to quarterly audits. |
| Moral‑decline backlash | • Policies that restrict abortion, same‑sex marriage, or gender‑affirming care, framed as protecting “family values”. • Education reforms that limit sex‑education curricula or promote “traditional morality” lessons. • Funding cuts to cultural projects deemed “degenerate” or “non‑national”. | Passing a bill that bans gender‑neutral bathrooms in public buildings and revises school textbooks to remove references to LGBTQ+ histories. |
Common Governance Patterns
- Centralisation of Power – Decision‑making is concentrated in the executive or in the leader’s inner circle, often justified by the need to act swiftly for the “people”.
- Legislative Bypass – Frequent use of referenda, executive orders, or emergency decrees to sidestep parliamentary opposition.
- Targeted Welfare – Social safety nets are reshaped to favor native citizens, reinforcing the “us vs. them” narrative.
- Regulatory Roll‑backs – Environmental, consumer‑protection, or labor regulations are loosened under the banner of protecting national industry and reducing “bureaucratic overreach”.
- Symbolic Nationalism – High‑visibility actions (renaming streets, erecting monuments, emphasizing national holidays) serve to cement a shared identity and signal the government’s commitment to cultural preservation.
- Media Control & Narrative Shaping – State‑run outlets receive preferential treatment; independent or foreign media are labeled as “fake news” or “propaganda”, limiting dissenting viewpoints.
- Polarising Rhetoric – Policy announcements are framed in stark moral terms (“protect our children”, “defend our sovereignty”), which consolidates the base but can deepen societal divisions.
Why These Behaviours Matter
- Policy Stability: Rapid, top‑down changes can create legal uncertainty for businesses and civil society.
- Institutional Trust: Persistent attacks on the judiciary, media, and bureaucracy can erode long‑term confidence in democratic institutions.
- Social Cohesion: Targeted welfare and anti‑immigration measures may exacerbate ethnic or cultural tensions.
- International Relations: Withdrawal from multilateral agreements can strain diplomatic ties and affect trade, security cooperation, and investment flows.
Understanding these patterns helps anticipate how right‑wing populist parties will translate their campaign themes into concrete governmental actions, and it highlights the areas where checks and balances become especially crucial.
It also needs to be understood how such measures are a stepping-stone to outright fascism. Right‑wing populism shares many traits with fascism—especially the emphasis on a strong, charismatic leader, a “people versus elite” narrative, and a defensive stance toward national identity. However, most contemporary right‑wing populist movements lack the core ideological and structural components that define classical fascism, such as an explicit totalitarian vision, a revolutionary myth of rebirth, systematic suppression of all dissent, and a corporatist economic model directed by the state. But there are clear signs that these are on the future agenda of right-wing populist and/or are being introduced stealthily in small increments.
Core defining elements of fascism:
| Feature | What it means in classic fascism (e.g., Mussolini, Nazi Germany) |
| Ideological myth | A belief in a historic or racial “rebirth” that requires a radical break with the current hegemony. |
| Totalitarian ambition | The aim to control politics, economics, culture, and private life through a single party/state apparatus. |
| Cult of the leader | The leader is portrayed as the embodiment of the nation’s destiny, often with quasi‑religious reverence. |
| Corporatist economy | The state organizes society into corporate groups (industry, labour, etc.) that are subordinated to the regime’s goals. |
| Militarism & expansionism | Aggressive foreign policy, glorification of war, and territorial conquest are central. |
| Systematic repression | All opposition—political parties, independent media, civil society—is outlawed or violently crushed. |
| Mass mobilization | Organized paramilitary squads, mass rallies, and propaganda are used to forge a unified, obedient populace. |
All of these are patently evident in Trump’s MAGA America.
- MAGA literally embodies the myth that 50’s America was great.
- Trump talks openly of dismantling the constitution to give him a third term, along with his threats to manipulate the electoral system.
- He fosters his brand image and cult status with followers at every opportunity, even producing his “God Bless the USA Bible”.
- The Trump Corporation has grown in reach and wealth substantially during his tenure as President. (More below.)
- Far from the being the “Peace President”, he has negotiated deals that benefit him and the USA rather than brokered peace settlements that can endure. He is effectively waging war on Venezuela and has designs on taking over Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal.
- His pressure on and repression of the media and any voices of opposition get bolder and more disturbing.
- He has sent troops into numerous USA states controlled by Democrats already and has long used mass rallies and propaganda to cement his support.
That right-wing populist leaders succeed in conning ordinary working people that they have their best interests at heart is one of their most bewildering but undeniable achievements. Witness the vast Tory corruption during Covid as one of the most blatant examples. But it is historically much more discreet in this country. Trump, of course, has no concept of discretion.
Trump appointed one of his real-estate developer mates, Steve Witkoff as Middle-East envoy and a special envoy in the Ukraine War negotiations. They are rubbing their hands with glee at thoughts of re-developing Gaza into the “Middle-East’s Riviera”; Trump’s ‘Project Sunrise’. And Witkoff caused a bit of a stir when it was leaked that he was briefing Russian officials that one of the best ways to get what they want out of Trump is to effectively ‘grease his palms’. Trump’s reaction to this revelation was simply that it was “what a dealmaker does”!
Such abuse of power for personal gain is nothing new of course (witness the personal fortunes accrued by relative lefties like Blair and Kinnock for example), but the sheer scale of Trump’s brazenness is hard to grasp.
Every US president since the 1970s has voluntarily adhered to rules designed to prevent conflicts of interest, typically by placing their businesses into blind trusts and stepping away from direct management. But things have been astonishingly different with Trump, who argues that he is not directly involved with his business because his children manage the Trump Organization. This argument persists even though profits from the family business obviously flow straight back to him.
Respected Lebanese-USA journalist, Mohamad Bazzi, has done a lot of work investigating the Trump families’ dealings in the Middle East. Talking to Aamna Mohdin in the Guardian’s First Edition newsletter, published on 29/12/2025, Bazzi said:
“It’s difficult to keep up with all the ways that Trump and his family have been profiting from the presidency,” Bazzi says. “A lot of the deals that have emerged are with international players – whether they’re companies, billionaires, governments – that want to make nice with the US president. They’ve seen that one quick way to please Donald Trump is by enriching his family business.”
Bazzi pointed to the Trump Organization’s increasing number of real estate deals with companies in Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. These companies, he says, have connections to their respective countries’ sovereign wealth funds or, in some cases, to their royal families. Bazzi says that these partnerships involve billions of dollars’ worth of real estate transactions and new golf course developments.
“In many of those cases, the Trump Organization isn’t putting up its own capital. They are branding deals where the Trump Organization leases the Trump name to these developers and they put in all the capital and investment to create these developments. The Trump family gets a licensing fee as well as a 20- or 30-year operating licence to manage these sites,” he adds.
Recent disclosures showed Dar Al Arkan, a publicly traded Saudi real estate developer, paid the Trump Organization $21.9m (£16.4m) in license fees in 2024 for projects in Dubai and Oman.
The Trump family business also ventured into crypto, launching a dollar-sign Trump meme coin days before his second inauguration. According to Bazzi, this coin’s value is purely speculative, but has still proved to be profitable for the family. “Ultimately, Trump and his family are raking in millions of dollars in fees as the coin is being traded back and forth. And so the crypto ventures provided the Trump family with new ways to profit from being in office,” he says.
It goes on and on. Trump rolled out the red carpet for Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) when the latter visited the White House in November. Shortly after Trump’s re-election, the prince pledged to invest $600bn (£449bn) in the US economy over the next four years. A year later at the White House, he promised to increase that investment to $1tn.
When asked what countries such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations were receiving in return for the eye-watering sums of money they had pledged to the US economy or to the Trump family, Bazzi replied:
“In Saudi Arabia’s case, it’s been this guaranteed defence pact that Trump announced when MBS visited him at the White House. He announced something similar, through executive order, for Qatar last October. Trump has promised the US will come to their defence if attacked, and promised to sell advanced US weaponry,” he says.
Working out exactly how much Trump has profited from the Presidency is very difficult. Forbes estimate his pre-presidency personal net worth at $3.7 billion and his current (December 2025) net worth at around $7 billion. But his greed seems insatiable and he no doubt aspires to achieving dictatorship as that is a means to accumulating much greater wealth. He would start off at number 10 in this historical list of the wealthiest dictators, adjusted to approximate modern USD equivalents where possible (as compiled by ChatGPT):
Wealthiest Dictators in History (Estimated)
1. Mansa Musa (Mali Empire, r. 1312–1337)
Estimated wealth: $400–600+ billion (modern equivalent)
- Often cited as the wealthiest individual in human history, not just a dictator.
- Controlled vast gold and salt reserves.
- His 1324 pilgrimage to Mecca reportedly caused gold inflation across North Africa and the Middle East.
2. Augusto Pinochet (Chile, r. 1973–1990)
Estimated wealth: $3–28 billion
- Secret offshore accounts revealed after his arrest.
- Wealth far exceeded official salary.
- Funds traced to corruption, kickbacks, and embezzlement.
3. Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines, r. 1965–1986)
Estimated wealth: $5–10+ billion
- Massive theft from public funds.
- Thousands of artworks, jewelry, real estate, and Swiss bank accounts.
- Famous for Imelda Marcos’s luxury spending.
4. Suharto (Indonesia, r. 1967–1998)
Estimated wealth: $15–35 billion
- Ranked by Transparency International as the most corrupt leader of the 20th century.
- Wealth accumulated via monopolies, bribes, and control over state resources.
5. Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union, r. 1924–1953)
Estimated wealth: Indirect control over trillions (state wealth)
- Personally lived modestly, but exercised absolute control over the USSR’s resources.
- His power over economic assets far exceeded that of most modern billionaires.
6. Muammar Gaddafi (Libya, r. 1969–2011)
Estimated wealth: $30–200 billion (disputed)
- Controlled oil revenues and sovereign funds.
- Used state money for personal and political projects worldwide.
- Exact personal wealth remains unclear.
7. Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire/DRC, r. 1965–1997)
Estimated wealth: $4–15 billion
- Infamous for kleptocracy.
- Embezzled state funds while the country collapsed economically.
- Built palaces while the population lived in poverty.
8. Kim Jong-il / Kim Jong-un (North Korea)
Estimated wealth: $5–10+ billion (family-controlled)
- Wealth tied to secret accounts, illicit trade, and state-controlled enterprises.
- Luxury spending despite nationwide famine conditions.
9. Saddam Hussein (Iraq, r. 1979–2003)
Estimated wealth: $2–20 billion
- Hidden cash, gold, and foreign accounts.
- Profited from oil smuggling and corruption under sanctions.
We need to fear anybody that thinks they can seize control of our government and undermine our hard-won rights and freedoms.
Currently, these are most directly threatened by the right-wing populists gaining traction by the tried and tested strategy of scapegoating vulnerable minorities and suppressing rights to protest. This is the thin edge of a very dangerous wedge that is being driven into our societies to create division and chaos from which they can profit. We need to voice our opposition and take on the misguided fools seduced by these snake oil salesmen. The consequences otherwise are dire and clear enough from history.
As Edmund Burke is paraphrased as saying: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
I could equally have cited the famous Niemöller quote, but I think it might need updating in light of the current wave of right-wing authoritarian populism:
First, they attacked the truth,
and I did not speak out—
because it was confusing, and I trusted authority.
Then they singled out outsiders and dissenters,
and I did not speak out—
because I was told they were dangerous.
Then they attacked the press,
and I did not speak out—
because I did not trust the media.
Then they weakened independent institutions,
and I did not speak out—
because it was done in the name of order.
Then they concentrated power and dismissed accountability,
and I did not speak out—
because I believed it would never turn on me.
Then they erased our personal freedoms —
and there was no one left who was allowed to speak.
Bridgend's Green Leftie 