Liz Truss will be Boris 2.0- a populist threat to democracy?

[Silver]

This is an old(ish) but interesting article which debates why we should be wary of leaders who promise all things to all people, but have their own interests at heart (which they don't reveal):

The dangers populism presents to democracy are not obvious, and to warn of them risks appearing elitist, with a surrounding whiff of ****** to boot. What is populism, after all, if not a movement that gives voice to ordinary people? And how is that fundamentally at odds with democracy, which means rule of the people as opposed to rule by an autocratic elite?

A root of the problem is a lack of consensus regarding what populism actually means. University of Georgia professor Cas Mudde describes it as an ideology that separates society into two homogeneous and antagonistic camps: the “pure people” and the “corrupt elite.” This is a useful definition, although I would describe the camp targeted by the “pure people” more expansively than does Mudde. They might include immigrants, say, or members of an ethnic or religious minority. Often, there is overlap. A corrupt elite might be blamed for pandering to minorities or letting too many foreigners into the country.

Why populism is a threat to democracy | Canadian International Council | Engaging Canadians in the World Since 1928 (thecic.org)

Edited August 13, 2022 by Silver

[itsnotoutthere]

You're probably right, like Boris she'll probably be a jellyfish bending to woke orthodoxy, damn shame we never had a real conservative in the running.

We need a PM that stands up to minority activists threats and puts this country first. A governments first priority is to look after its citizens.

Edited August 14, 2022 by itsnotoutthere

[acute]

PM Sunak will most likely be a dismal failure, but PM Truss would be a disaster.

Tax cuts mainly benefit the rich, but she is obsessed with them.

[L.A.T.1961]

I hear if Truss becomes the third female tory leader, and P M, Starmer will start self identifying as a woman.   

He is already getting some tips from his number 2 on how to cross legs. 

[kartikg]

How else can one get elected? Have to promise everything to everyone. 

[Duke Wellington]

19 hours ago, Silver said:

This is an old(ish) but interesting article which debates why we should be wary of leaders who promise all things to all people, but have their own interests at heart (which they don't reveal):

The dangers populism presents to democracy are not obvious, and to warn of them risks appearing elitist, with a surrounding whiff of ****** to boot. What is populism, after all, if not a movement that gives voice to ordinary people? And how is that fundamentally at odds with democracy, which means rule of the people as opposed to rule by an autocratic elite?

A root of the problem is a lack of consensus regarding what populism actually means. University of Georgia professor Cas Mudde describes it as an ideology that separates society into two homogeneous and antagonistic camps: the “pure people” and the “corrupt elite.” This is a useful definition, although I would describe the camp targeted by the “pure people” more expansively than does Mudde. They might include immigrants, say, or members of an ethnic or religious minority. Often, there is overlap. A corrupt elite might be blamed for pandering to minorities or letting too many foreigners into the country.

Why populism is a threat to democracy | Canadian International Council | Engaging Canadians in the World Since 1928 (thecic.org)

You know, I kind of suspect why you are against populism is buried in there.

Its about immigration, but shouldn`t immigration only occur at a level the host nations people is happy with?