The Globalists Fight Back Against Populism! By Richard Miller (London)
British MP Liam Byrne's new book Why Populists Are Winning: and How to Beat Them marks a shift in how parts of the British political establishment think about the rise of populist movements. After years of trying to suppress the "demand side" of populism through policing, prosecutions, public shaming, and political exclusion, Byrne argues that these efforts have not worked. Public anger keeps growing. His solution is to attack the "supply side" instead by restricting the flow of money, media platforms, and organisational support that allow populist ideas to reach voters.
Specifically, Byrne wants tighter controls on political spending by individuals and groups, greater regulation of social media algorithms to limit what he sees as divisive content, and measures to curb the funding of populist-aligned media outlets and think tanks. He portrays the populist ecosystem as a sophisticated "venture" backed by wealthy investors who profit from volatility and chaos, rather than a genuine grassroots response to real problems. In his view, limiting these financial and media channels will starve populism of oxygen and allow the "radical centre" to regain control.
This strategy is almost certain to fail, and it is likely to make the underlying problems worse.
The core mistake is that Byrne treats populist support as something artificially manufactured by clever financiers and Right-wing media rather than a natural reaction to decades of policy failures. In Britain and across much of Europe, voters have watched living standards stagnate for many working families, high streets decline, housing become unaffordable, and public services strain under rapid demographic change. Issues such as grooming gangs, migrant crime that goes unpunished or undeported, and cultural shifts that dismiss native concerns have created deep resentment. These are not illusions created by a few Spectator articles or Reform UK donors. They are daily realities for millions of people.
Byrne's own research shows that around £173 million flowed into populist-aligned causes in the UK over six years. That sounds large until you compare it to government spending. Britain spends billions each year on asylum accommodation, migration-related charities, and policies that many voters see as prioritising newcomers over long-settled communities. When ordinary citizens see these outcomes and feel their voices are ignored or labelled as bigoted, they naturally turn to politicians who acknowledge their concerns. Choking off private funding and press freedom does nothing to fix the underlying grievances. It simply removes one of the few remaining outlets for dissent.
History shows that restricting speech and political funding rarely kills off popular movements. It usually drives them underground, increases their appeal as "forbidden" ideas, and breeds greater distrust of institutions. When governments limit what people can read, say, or fund, they confirm the populist narrative that the elite is rigging the system to protect itself. This is especially dangerous in an era when trust in mainstream parties, media, and experts is already low.
Moreover, the proposal is deeply asymmetric. The establishment already controls vast resources through public funding, state broadcasters, large corporations, NGOs, and regulatory bodies. Populist groups often rely more heavily on small donors and independent media precisely because they lack access to those levers. Curtailing individual spending rights and press freedoms would disproportionately harm challengers while leaving the incumbent power structure largely untouched.
The deeper flaw is philosophical. Liberal democracies have long recognised that the best way to handle bad ideas is through open debate, not by silencing the other side. Once you accept that the state or regulators should decide which political spending or media content is too dangerous, you open the door to ever-widening censorship. Today it might target populist donors. Tomorrow it could silence anyone questioning net zero policies, mass migration, or gender ideology. The result is not a healthier centre but a more brittle and resented political order.
Byrne's supply-side approach also misunderstands where real political power comes from. Politics is downstream of culture and lived experience. No amount of algorithm tweaking or donation bans will make voters forget about rising crime, falling real wages, or the sense that their country is changing in ways they never consented to. Suppressing the supply of populist messaging might temporarily reduce its visibility, but it will not reduce the demand created by failed governance.
In the end, the most effective way to beat populism is not to censor or financially hobble its supporters. It is to govern competently, respect democratic consent, control borders sensibly, and address the legitimate concerns of ordinary citizens. Until centre-Left and centre-Right politicians are willing to do that, populists will continue to win because they are filling a vacuum left by establishment failure.
Attacking freedom of the press and the right of citizens to support causes they believe in is not a clever tactical pivot. It is an admission that the centre has run out of persuasive arguments and now wants to win by default through restriction. That path has been tried before in various forms, and it has never produced the stable, contented society its advocates promise. It usually deepens division and accelerates the very decline it claims to fight.
https://spectator.com/article/supply-side-britain-europe-decline/
