More stories

  • in

    How should Labour and the Tories respond to the populist right? Lessons from Europe

    In Germany’s snap parliamentary elections, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) doubled its vote share to 21%, leaping from the fifth-largest party in Germany’s lower house to the second. In the UK, Reform UK is rising in the polls.

    The populist radical right is on the rise across Europe, and mainstream parties are grappling with how to respond.

    The German “firewall” approach involves treating them as a pariah. This means refusing to enter coalition with them, as well as excluding them from parliamentary posts and refusing to debate or engage with their parliamentary motions. After Germany’s election, the first-place party, the Christian democrats (CDU/CSU), has no majority and will need at least one coalition partner to form a government. But it will not ask the AfD – and nor will any other party due to the firewall.

    There are clear threats to this approach. Often the appeal of the populist right is that they are plucky outsiders, challenging a self-interested political cartel that ignores the views of the people. What better way to prove this case than by ignoring the democratically elected populists too?

    Furthermore, the firewall has clearly not worked in dampening support for the populists in Germany, as well as in France. This is especially the case when the populists have allies in the media, have privileges given them by the constitution or parliamentary rules (for example, membership on committees), or strong regional bases.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    Mainstream parties must also decide whether to maintain their own policy positions or ape those of the populist radical right, especially on key topics like immigration and welfare.

    For social democratic centre-left parties, academic research is clear: do not move towards the populist radical right on policy.

    Typically, the voter base of social democratic parties is made up of two coalitions: the educated, urban and liberal middle classes, and the old core of industrial workers who tend to hold more authoritarian attitudes. In attempting to win over voters lost to the populist right by copying their policies, these parties tend to lose more voters on their liberal-left wing than they win on their populist-right wing.

    A seat at the table: AfD co-chair Alice Weidel joins mainstream party leaders after the German election.
    Andreas Gora/EPA-EFE

    For the centre-right, the decision is harder. They face a similar challenge to the centre-left in that their support coalition is often made up of social authoritarians (who are more likely to be populist radical right-curious) and more centrist free-market liberals. Moving towards the populist right will alienate the latter camp, so it is not a silver bullet for bringing voters back into the fold.

    By not talking about policy areas which are clearly salient to the public, centre-right parties risk seeming out of touch. In contrast, talking about these issues increases their salience and highlights their rivals’ positions – but the centre-right may not be rewarded for this if they are seen to have been forced into changing policy by the populist radical right.

    Academics have explored this question in various ways. A 2021 study looked at voters’ ideological positions and subsequent propensity for voting for the centre-right or populist radical right. Another, published in 2022, examined changing party positions through manifestos and subsequent voter flows between the populist radical right and the centre-right across 13 western European countries. The evidence suggests that when parties adopt populist radical right positions, voters are more likely to defect to the radical right instead.

    The final strategy is the complete opposite to the German firewall: bring the populist radical right into government. The Austrian case is instructive here. In 1999, the centre-right Austrian People’s Party (OVP) entered a coalition with the populist radical right Freedom Party (FPO), which lasted until 2005. The pressures of government resulted in the FPO imploding and losing roughly two-thirds of its seat share in the next general election.

    But the FPO has increased its seat share in every subsequent election, reentering government in 2017 and emerging as the largest party in the 2024 general election. The centrist parties have now taken a firewall approach, forming a coalition without the FPO – and the FPO have soared in the polls. By bringing them into government in the first place, the OVP legitimised the FPO in the eyes of many voters.

    What should mainstream parties do?

    For the centre-left, the choice is obvious: resist the urge to ape the populist radical right and instead (following the lead of the Danish Social Democrats) adapt to a party system where the populist right cannot be gotten rid of, but is a problem to be managed.

    Centre-left parties need a robust message on immigration but they should not forget economics. They should primarily focus on traditional concerns around social protection and defending workers against the effects of globalisation.

    This has clear implications for the debate around Blue Labour ideology – that the Labour party should combine leftwing economics with more socially authoritarian stances on crime and immigration, plus a greater emphasis on community over the state and market – and how closely Keir Starmer should be paying attention to it.

    For centre-right parties like the UK’s Conservatives, there are no easy options.

    The UK does not have the historical baggage of Germany which sustains the firewall against the AfD. But Reform UK is also less extreme than its German counterparts, so its electoral ceiling is likely to be higher than the AfD’s. And the first-past-the-post system makes the consequences of a three-party system much harder to predict.

    Reform – like Ukip in the early 2010s – cannot be treated as a pariah, especially since it already has parliamentary representation which will probably be extended to Holyrood and the Senedd. The party also has a largely friendly rightwing media landscape. And perhaps most importantly, the Conservative party is split about whether to do a deal with Reform – if, of course, it actually wants said deal.

    Openly ignoring the issues Reform campaigns on will not work. Immigration is too much of a salient concern among voters (especially on the right) to ignore. While banging on about immigration will only add fuel to Reform’s fire, the Conservatives do need to say something – and that should start with “sorry for the last 14 years”.

    The Tories cannot openly move to the right without losing some of their centre flank. Of the seats won in 2024, Reform came second in nine, while Labour and the Liberal Democrats came second in 87 and 20 respectively. In 2024, for every vote the Conservatives lost to Reform, they also lost a vote to the Liberal Democrats or Labour.

    There is no “magic formula” for the centre-right to vanquish the populist radical right. Instead, they need to nail a tricky combination: a clear vision of what they believe, a consistent policy platform that flows from these beliefs, and a charismatic leader who can communicate this to the public. More

  • in

    Buying a Home? Without the CFPB, You Need to Be Your Own Watchdog.

    The C.F.P.B. had kept a close eye on mortgage lenders. But with the bureau hobbled, consumers should take several steps, starting with shopping for the best mortgage rates.House prices are stubbornly high, and mortgage rates remain substantially above their prepandemic level. Now, with the spring home buying season looming, shoppers have a new worry: A major federal consumer watchdog has been hobbled.Without the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency responsible for overseeing most aspects of the home buying process, consumer advocates say home buyers need to be their own watchdogs.“Now, when you buy a house, you are much more vulnerable to being misled,” said Sharon Cornelissen, housing director with the Consumer Federation of America. “It’s important to be on guard, because guardrails are being taken away.”Buying a home is the biggest financial decision most Americans will make in their lives. The typical home price is about $397,000, according to the National Association of Realtors, but prices are far higher in some parts of the country. In several California counties, for instance, the median price at the end of last year was over $1.5 million, with monthly mortgage payments over $8,000.What role has the consumer bureau played in home buying?The consumer bureau was created after the financial and housing crisis in 2007-8 to streamline oversight of lenders and financial companies serving consumers. Over the years, the bureau has moved to ease the mortgage shopping process by offering simplified forms and educational tools, and has taken action against an array of banks and lenders. In 2022, for instance, the bureau ordered Wells Fargo to pay $3.7 billion for mishandling a variety of customer accounts, including improperly denying thousands of requests for mortgage loan modifications that in some cases led borrowers to lose their homes to “wrongful” foreclosures.On Jan. 17, in the final days of the Biden administration, the bureau reached a settlement with Draper and Kramer Mortgage Corporation for discouraging borrowers from applying for loans to buy homes in majority Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Chicago and Boston. In an email, the lender’s lawyers said Draper and Kramer “considers the matter closed and denies” the bureau’s claims, but chose to settle in part to avoid “protracted legal costs.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Fort Liberty Set to Be Renamed Fort Bragg, Fulfilling a Trump Promise

    In 2020, Congress pushed past the president’s veto of a military policy bill to rename the base, which was originally named for a Confederate general.The Trump administration will officially reinstate the name of an Army base in North Carolina on Friday to Fort Bragg, which was originally named for an incompetent Confederate general who owned enslaved people.The base’s name was changed to Fort Liberty in June 2023 as part of the U.S. military’s examination of its history with race. But President Trump campaigned on a promise to restore the old name.The official ceremony at the military base on Friday will cement a political victory for Mr. Trump, who suffered a legislative defeat in 2020 when Congress pushed past his veto of a bill with a provision to rename nine Army bases that had honored treasonous Confederate generals who fought against the United States to preserve slavery and white supremacy.The original naming of those bases was part of a movement to glorify the Confederacy and advance the Lost Cause myth that the Civil War was fought over “states’ rights” and not slavery.The reversion of Fort Liberty to Fort Bragg is part of a larger effort by Mr. Trump to purge the military of top officers, diversity initiatives, transgender service members and other things that he said had made the armed forces “woke.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Migrant Boats Capsize Off Yemen and Djibouti, U.N. Says

    The missing people were on two boats that capsized off Yemen, which is on a major route for migrants trying to reach Gulf countries for work.CAIRO — At least two people have died and 186 others were missing after four boats carrying migrants from Africa capsized overnight in waters off Yemen and Djibouti, the United Nations migration agency said on Friday.Two vessels capsized off Yemen late Thursday, said Tamim Eleian, a spokesman for the International Organization for Migration. Two crew members were rescued, but 181 migrants and five Yemeni crew members remain missing, he said.Two other boats capsized off the tiny African nation of Djibouti around the same time, he said. Two bodies of migrants were recovered, and all others onboard were rescued.Strong winds caused the two boats to capsize near the beach in Djibouti after they started sailing off, said Abdusattor Esoev, the head of the mission for the I.O.M. in Yemen.The third boat, which capsized off Dhubab district in Taiz governorate, in southwestern Yemen, was carrying 31 Ethiopian migrants and three Yemeni crew.The fourth boat, which capsized near the same area, was heading to Ahwar district in Abyan governorate, and was carrying 150 Ethiopian migrants and four Yemeni crew.Yemen is a major route for migrants from East Africa and the Horn of Africa seeking to reach Gulf countries for work, with hundreds of thousands trying the route each year.To reach Yemen, migrants are taken by smugglers on often dangerous, overcrowded boats across the Red Sea or Gulf of Aden.The numbers making it to Yemen reached 97,200 in 2023 — triple the number in 2021. Last year, the number dropped to just under 61,000, probably because of greater patrolling of the waters, according to an I.O.M. report released this month.Over the past decade, at least 2,082 migrants have disappeared along the route, including 693 known to have drowned, according to the migration agency. Some 380,000 migrants are in Yemen. More

  • in

    Abrdn’s Rebrand Reversal and a History of Corporate Missteps

    A British investment firm restored most of the vowels to its name after a widely ridiculed revamp that showed the pitfalls of trying to look cool in the digital age.Hw cn brnds sty cl? Nt by drpping vwls, one of Britain’s biggest investment firms concluded this week, when it announced it was adding back the “e’s” to its name four years after dropping them.The 200-year-old company is now called aberdeen group, effectively reversing a decision to rebrand as abrdn in 2021 in a bid to pitch itself as a “modern, agile, digitally-enabled brand.”The decision four years ago was widely ridiculed. James Windsor, who took over as chief executive last year, said on Tuesday that it was time to “remove distractions” — less than two months after saying he had no plans to change the name.Corporate rebrands can be critical to signifying a strategy shift but they also come with risks when companies veer too far from their purpose. Aberdeen’s vowel-dropping rebrand was just the latest example of a company reversing course after a new name failed to lift its performance or its reputation with customers.The Perils of Chasing TrendsRemoving vowels from brand names or using a name with a deliberately misspelled word was not uncommon in the 2000s, especially among trendy technology companies. Businesses including Grindr, Flickr, Tumblr and even twttr, as Twitter (now X) was initially called, embraced the aesthetic. But today, that style can look out of date and embarrassing, said Laura Bailey, a senior lecturer in linguistics at the University of Kent.Often, when companies try to appear trendy, “by the time they get to it, it’s been around for too long,” Dr. Bailey said. “It’s like your parents doing it — it doesn’t seem right.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    N.Y. Corrections Department Issues Ultimatum to Striking Officers

    The department agreed to some of the officers’ demands but said that those who did not return to work on Friday would face disciplinary action and possible criminal charges.Corrections officers who staged unauthorized strikes that have sowed chaos across New York State’s prisons for the last two and a half weeks received an ultimatum on Thursday night: Return to work on Friday or face termination, disciplinary action and the possibility of criminal charges.In exchange for the officers’ returning to work, the state would place a 90-day pause on some provisions of the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act, known as HALT, which limits the use of solitary confinement for inmates, Daniel F. Martuscello III, commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, said in a news conference Thursday night.The department will also create a committee to study the law, which many corrections officers say has made their jobs more dangerous and difficult.Striking officers have also complained about staffing shortages and forced overtime, with some being required to work 24-hour shifts. The shifts of workers who return to duty on Friday will be limited to 12 hours, Mr. Martuscello said. When all workers are back in place and the prisons return to normal operations, he said, workers will not be forced to work shifts longer than eight hours.Dozens of corrections officers and sergeants have been fired for participating in the illegal strikes, Jackie Bray, commissioner of the New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, said Thursday evening. Others who refuse to return to work on Friday will also be fired, and will face possible disciplinary action, civil contempt charges or criminal prosecution, Ms. Bray said.Those who return to work on Friday can avoid all of that, Ms. Bray said. Striking corrections officers and sergeants who already quit, who were fired, or who face contempt charges or other disciplinary actions will have their records swept clean and their jobs reinstated, but only if they accept the terms offered Thursday night.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Judge Reinstates NLRB Member Fired by Trump

    A federal judge on Thursday reinstated Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board, declaring that President Trump’s attempt to fire her was unlawful.The ruling, which the Trump administration immediately moved to appeal, was a rebuke of Mr. Trump’s expansive view of executive power and his efforts to establish presidential control over agencies designed by Congress to be independent from the White House.Judge Beryl A. Howell, appointed to the Federal District Court in Washington by President Barack Obama, excoriated Mr. Trump’s vision of unchecked authority in her 36-page ruling, referring to a declaration he had made during the 2024 campaign that he would be a dictator on “Day 1” and to an image that the White House shared of Mr. Trump wearing the crown of a king.“A president who touts an image of himself as a ‘king’ or a ‘dictator,’ perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution” Judge Howell wrote.She later continued that “an American president is not a king — not even an ‘elected’ one — and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute, but may be constrained in appropriate circumstances, as are present here.”Ms. Wilcox did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Her ouster, in January, had the effect of paralyzing the N.L.R.B., which hears labor disputes, because it left the board with just two members — a Republican and a Democrat — and, by federal law, the board cannot act without a minimum of three members.She swiftly filed a lawsuit, one of several cases that could wind up before the Supreme Court as a test of the reaches of executive authority.In a lengthy hearing in the case on Wednesday, before the ruling, Judge Howell made a joke about the case’s possible trajectory, saying that she understood that “this court is merely a speed bump for you all to get to the Supreme Court.” More

  • in

    NYT Crossword Answers for March 7, 2025

    Malaika Handa opens our solving weekend.Jump to: Today’s Theme | Tricky CluesFRIDAY PUZZLE — Every constructor brings something different to the New York Times Crossword, and I’d like to think that I approach each solve with equal enthusiasm. When it comes to the different days of the solving week, however, I’m not ashamed to play favorites: Fridays have my heart.The Times runs two themeless puzzles per week, on Fridays and Saturdays. Because the Saturday crossword is generally understood to be the hardest of the week, I like to think of Fridays as the calm before the storm. These grids give us a welcome change of pace after a week of themed puzzles and serve as a teaser for what’s to come. I don’t know how else to describe what I love about them — they just work.Today’s Friday fare is the handiwork of Malaika Handa, a constructor whose deftness for punchy fill has made her a regular and much-admired figure in the T.C.C.U. — the Times Crossword Cinematic Universe. This is an especially breezy grid, with no ambiguous spanners or any obscure phrasing. It just works.Tricky Clues19A. Here’s today’s tip about solving question-marked clues: Try interpreting words as different parts of speech. In [Leaves for dinner?], for instance, “leaves” seems like a verb. But what if we interpret it as a noun, as in the leaves you eat for dinner? There’s our answer: KALE.23A. Users of the TI-83 — or of any calculators that predate smartphones — may have the upper hand here. [What might be confused with “5” on a digital display] is the letter ESS. (When entries are letters, they tend to be written phonetically.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More