Textual analysis: The UK party system

A novel two-stage content and qualitative analysis is used to analyse the 'populism' of eight parties in UK General Elections from 2001-2015: the Conservative Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democratic Party, Green Party of England and Wales, Scottish National Party, British National Party, UKIP and Respect. This chapter makes three main substantive contributions: first, it provides empirical richness to the study of UK parties and thereby shows that a) the much-touted populist Zeitgeist in the UK barely exists and b) distinct forms of populism exist on the radical left and radical right; second, it makes the methodological point that there are advantages and disadvantages to disaggregated measures of populism: they can be misleading if the focus is on summing up numerical categories; qualitative analysis is needed to show more fully how each element interrelates; third, the chapter makes an important theoretical point: what is often called 'thin' or 'mainstream' populism' is not populism but demoticism (closeness to the common people); therefore analysts should not label parties 'somewhat populist' just because their rhetoric is demotic. This chapter provides empirical richness to the study of United Kingdom (UK) parties and thereby shows that the populist Zeitgeist in the UK barely exists either among the mainstream and non-mainstream parties, and genuine populism is confined to parties of the radical left and radical right. It makes the methodological point that there are advantages and disadvantages to disaggregated measures of populism: they can be misleading if the focus is on summing up numerical categories; qualitative analysis is needed to show more fully how each element interrelates. The chapter reinforces that the ideational approach demands we pay careful attention to the contextual operationalisation of populism, especially in textual analysis. It also makes an important theoretical point: what is often called 'thin' or 'mainstream' populism' is not populism but demoticism; therefore analysts should not label parties 'somewhat populist' just because their rhetoric is demotic.