The Revenge of the White Van Man
First Italy, now South America. Populism is awake, and it sounds like common sense. From Milei in Buenos Aires to Meloni in Rome and Independents in Basingstoke, the revenge of the ordinary working man and woman, long sneered at by the metropolitan elite, is in full swing.
In Buenos Aires, Javier Milei’s alliance has just cemented control of Congress with roughly 40% of the vote after delivering Argentina’s first budget surplus in 14 years. Inflation, once galloping toward 300%, is finally falling. The peso is stabilising. Exports are hitting record highs. For the first time in a generation, Argentina smells less like crisis and more like competence.
The same scent is drifting across the continent. In Bolivia, voters have broken nearly two decades of socialist rule, weary of slogans that never fed a family. In Chile, conservatives have retaken the constitutional council from the ideologues who tried to turn it into a UN manifesto.
They follow Italy’s lead, where Giorgia Meloni has committed the greatest heresy in modern politics. Competence. She’s run a Right-wing government that listens to its people and survives the Left’s ritual incantation of ‘fascist!’ – the last cry of a movement that’s run out of ideas.
But across Europe, the same message carries a sharper edge. South America’s populists inherited broken economies. Europe’s are battling something deeper: cultural dislocation. In Italy and Greece, mass immigration has tested the limits of infrastructure, identity and patience. Meloni listened, and the people responded. Even Brussels, once drunk on its own moral virtue, is sobering up to the reality that its open-border utopia has become a clear and present danger to the Enlightenment values it claims to defend.
We’ve seen this play before. Weimar Germany, terrified of another Kaiser, replaced authority with administration. In its zeal to avoid autocracy, it built a technocracy: a government of academics, lawyers and bureaucrats who thought process could replace principle. They smothered initiative, mocked patriotism and buried the nation in paperwork. And in that sterile soil a demagogue found oxygen.
A century later, Starmer, Corbyn, Polanski and Davey are auditioning for a sequel. A coalition of clerks and socialists mistaking management for leadership and morality for policy. They would rather regulate the human spirit than trust it. But history’s warning is clear: when a nation’s soul is buried under spreadsheets and moral posturing, something uglier eventually digs its way out.
This is not the rise of fascism, nor the death of democracy. It is democracy rediscovering itself. Farage is not Hitler, not even Trump. Badenoch is certainly no Boadicea. Call it the revolt of the practical classes: the people who pay the bills, fix the boilers, drive the white vans and still believe that you should cut your cloth according to your wallet. They don’t hate the planet, but they know a carbon tax won’t save it. They don’t hate foreigners, but they resent being told that borders are immoral. They don’t hate the poor, but they know work must pay more than welfare. They don’t hate education, but they know indoctrination when they see it.
The lesson seems lost on Gen X, Gen Z and the professors who raised them on the tyranny of virtue. That the state can’t subsidise its way to prosperity. Nor can it browbeat us into believing that feelings build economies and outrage pays the bills. It doesn’t. That’s why the woke run departments, not businesses – and when businesses go woke, they go broke.
Ask the Scots and the Welsh how socialism and DEI is working out. Their economies are shrinking, their services failing and their governments still blaming Westminster for problems of their own making.
For decades the managerial Left has treated these instincts as backward. In Britain the phrase ‘white van man’ became shorthand for the knuckle-dragging, flag waving, tabloid-reading class too thick to understand what was good for them. Yet across continents, these men and women of every creed and colour are showing that they understand the economy better than the people who run it. Because they live in it.
When the elites talk about ‘diversity and inclusion’, the people hear division and intrusion. When they promise ‘equity’, they see competence replaced by compliance. They don’t want managed equality; they want earned opportunity. They want unity through shared culture, not fragmentation through grievance. They believe that patriotism is a virtue, not a sin. That an Englishman’s home really is his castle, not a line in a housing-policy white paper.
This is why populism, properly defined as ‘people not party or politics’, is as popular in Buenos Aires and Bolivia as it is in Basingstoke, where a coalition led by Independents governs. It speaks to the quiet dignity of work, the pride of self-reliance and the freedom to live without perpetual supervision by experts who think they know better and answer to the political class, not the working class.
Milei understands that. He ran on a message so simple that even bureaucrats and economists could understand it. Stop spending money you don’t have. His ‘chainsaw economics’, as his critics called it, cut deep, yet Argentina’s markets responded with relief and investment began to flow back.
Italy’s Meloni did something similar. She trimmed bureaucracy, defended borders and told Brussels she would not let migrants define her nation’s future. Her reward? Italy’s GDP outperformed both France and Germany last year.
Chile’s conservatives took back the constitution from the ideologues who tried to turn it into a UN utopia. Bolivia’s centrists are promising energy reform and security instead of socialist slogans. In every case, the same pattern emerges. People are tired of being managed. They want to be led.
Yet here in Britain, Starmer’s Labour appears convinced that our future lies in hugging the Greens and building a coalition of moral vanity. His ministers talk as if growth is a dirty word and prosperity a guilty pleasure. Yet the ghosts of Callaghan and Foot hover over Downing Street. The last time Labour tried to run Britain on borrowed money and borrowed ideology, the lights literally went out.
Reform UK and the Conservatives still have time to learn from Milei and Meloni. The lesson is simple. Stand for work, not welfare. Pride, not pity. Equality, not equity. Unity, not division. Tell people the truth, not what they want to hear. Treat taxpayers as adults, not subjects. In short, rediscover faith in the ordinary people who make the country work.
The revenge of the white van man is not reactionary, it is rational. It is the sound of the democratic engine starting again after years of elite neglect. From Buenos Aires to Basingstoke, Santiago to Sheffield, the message is the same. Give us competence, courage and freedom. We’ll do the rest. Ignore us, and we’ll take away the keys.
Clive Pinder is a recovering global executive, accidental columnist and mildly repentant political provocateur. He writes about hypocrisy, hubris, humanity and why Britain’s future depends on the common sense of the people who drive it on Substack.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Certainly imaginative to include the current leader of the Tory party in this discussion.
I agree! It was cringeworthy.
France, the UK & the USA are all running 5%-6% year on year budget deficits. Trump’s magic money tree, tariffs, and global demand for $ may stave off a crash for a while there, but in France & the UK, we’ve maxed out on tax of income and spending, next up is wealth. You’re then into selling the family silver territory.
Gordon Brown did that already.
Wasn’t it the family gold?
Why not just stop invoking German history of the 20th century when you have really absolutely no clue about it?
The German empire prior to 1919 wasn’t an autocracy and the republic which replaced it was a perfectly run-of-the-mill representative democracy. It ended rather ignominously because a parliamentary government couldn’t be formed anymore as the major parties couldn’t agree on a way to deal with the deficit of the unemployment insurance after the Great Depression had caused unemployment to skyrocket to three millions.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. The German Empire (1871-1918) was not a full democracy. The Kaiser appointed the Chancellor, who was accountable to him, not the Reichstag. Prussia’s three-class franchise system alone ensured that aristocratic landowners dominated politics long after universal male suffrage existed on paper. Calling that anything other than a semi-autocratic constitutional monarchy is just wishful revisionism.
As for Weimar, yes, it was a parliamentary democracy, but hardly “run-of-the-mill.” It was born out of defeat, saddled with Versailles reparations, and structurally unstable from day one. The President’s Article 48 powers let him rule by decree—precisely how democracy collapsed into authoritarianism. The crisis over unemployment insurance in 1930 was symptomatic, not causal. It was the breaking point in a political system already hollowed out by economic collapse, hyper-inflation trauma, and mutual contempt between left and right.
Reducing the fall of the Republic to a budget squabble is like saying Rome fell because of poor road maintenance. The truth is far more complex and far more relevant to modern democracies that mistake form for substance.
Still, the points RW makes are sound. Imperial Germany wasn’t an autocracy, and the Weimar Republic might have survived but for the Great Depression.
That’s a generous reading of history. Imperial Germany may not have been a totalitarian autocracy in the modern sense, but it was hardly a liberal democracy. The Kaiser appointed the Chancellor, the army swore allegiance to the monarch, and the Reichstag had limited power over the executive. It was a militarised, hierarchical state in which democracy was ornamental rather than operative. The more important point was that the technocrats over-compensated for this centralized authoritarian control.
Imperial Germany wasn’t really a centralised state – it was a confederation. For example, the central government couldn’t raise direct taxes (income tax) and had to reply on subventions from the states, and revenues from customs and excise. There wasn’t even a single German army, but regional armies – for example, Bavarian. And Erwin Rommel, for example joined the Wurtemberg Army.
Imperial Germany wasn’t a liberal democracy, by any means, and the military certainly had very high social prestige, but I see it as a unique political system that was only slightly outside the European mainstream.
Imperial Germany, for all its deficits, brought out much of the best in Germany. It was a period that lasted only a handful of decades, slightly less in fact than the present republic. Yet in that period some of the nation’s great inventors, scientists, architects, philosophers, composers and writers delivered some of their greatest masterpieces. If you want to judge a system by its outcomes rather than its inner workings, imperial Germany was arguably the nation’s golden age.
It was the Kaiser’s greatest error to get embroiled in WW1. Had he not done so, the Second Reich would have survived much longer. Democratic reforms would have happened as a matter of course, as they did elsewhere. And in all probability, nobody would ever have heard of a certain vegetarian painter from Braunau am Inn.
The problem though is that history books are written for the most part of left wing historians who have an axe to grind.
It was the Kaiser’s greatest error to get embroiled in WW1. Had he not done so, the Second Reich would have survived much longer.
The so-called first world war was a long planned war of a French-Russian alliance against Germany. The only thing which was uncertain about it was when it would start. The so-called July Crisis of 1914 just provided a convenient opportunity for starting it now.
The Reichstag was elected according to universal male suffrage and its assent was needed for all laws. Further, it was responsible for authorizing the budget of the government which was an important reason for the fact that about 50% of the potential conscripts of this ‘militarized’ state never came in touch with the military (as opposed to ‘non-militarized’ France which drafted about 80% of its male population into the armed forces).
This means that the German Empire was actually not particularly militarized and that its constitution had a strong democractic element with serious political power. Which wasn’t necessarily a good thing as the “Please! Sweet Americans! Just let us rule Our Own Dog Shed¹! And if the German people go to hell because of this, so be it!” activities of the German socialists would show in October/ November 1918.
¹ SPD MPs are on record for stating that a miliary victory wouldn’t be in the best interest of their own party as early as 1915.
Universal male suffrage didn’t make the Reichstag sovereign. It could pass budgets, but the Kaiser and his Chancellor still ruled without its confidence and could dissolve it whenever they wished. The military answered to the Kaiser alone, not parliament.
Germany’s limited conscription rates reflected logistics, not pacifism, and its society remained dominated by the officer class and Junker elite. Calling that democratic because socialists sat in the chamber is like calling China free because it has elections for local councils.
The German Empire wasn’t a democracy at all but a monarchy. But the monarch, who had less political powers than the president of the USA, wasn’t an autocrat. That’s a lie invented by US war time (WWI) propaganda. He was the supreme commander of the armed forces in war time. And further, he was the chairman/ president of the federal council (Bundesrat) and as such, responsible for appointing the chancellor who had legal responsibility for all political acts.
The constitution of Prussia is of no relevance for this question. [You’re also confusing the voting system in Prussia and the voting system for the Reichstag. The latter used universal male suffrage, the former didn’t.]
The president of the Weimar republic could not rule by decree. He could issue so-called emergency decrees the Reichstag could overrule by majority vote. And he was directly elected by the people which means he had a democratic mandate, something you conveniently ignore. Article 48 proved to be the saving grace of the republic when parliamentary governance became impossible due to party partisanship.
The German Empire wasn’t democratic in any modern sense. The Kaiser appointed the Chancellor, controlled the military, and could dissolve parliament at will. The Reichstag had universal male suffrage but no power to form or dismiss governments. That’s not democracy; it’s monarchy with a ballot box.
As for Weimar, Article 48 wasn’t its “saving grace” but its undoing. Presidents ruled by decree when parliament gridlocked, eroding democracy from within. Both systems show that constitutions mean little without real accountability and restraint.
But that isn’t my point which is that the technocrats were an over correction that begat the Third Reich.
“Farage is not Hitler, not even Trump” ?
“Stop spending money you don’t have.” Didn’t Margaret Thatcher have a similar message about half a century ago. And yet two tier Kier was still burbling on about 14 years of Tory austerity in today’s PMQs.
It is somewhat startling to realise that the current Labour Government haven’t got a clue. Their tried and tested routines and excuses no longer work, but they dread trying to do something else because that way leads to rolling back socialism.
They are the dog that actually caught the car they were chasing and don’t know what to do now.
Exactly my thoughts.
Absolutely nothing that this government works, they are clueless.
As if it was anything like austerity in practice! It wasn’t – they were still part of the borrow and spend brigade. Less perhaps, but still believed in it.
Funny how, although I do agree with the definition of populism from this article, in lots of countries including Argentina its meaning is completely different. It refers mostly to socialists that say things that people want to hear, spend money with both hands to make sure they stay in power, etc.
In Milei’s own words: The Argentines said enough to populism. Populism never again!
A very encouraging article by Clive Pinder, except for the Fly in the Ointment: Closet Globalist Meloni, who was bizarrely chosen by “The Brothers of Italy” to represent them, swept into power on promises to stop the Third World Invasion of Italy, then immediately started backtracking, even refusing to support the True Leader of Italy, Matteo Salvini, when he tried to take practical action to stop the Invasion, and was threatened with prison for it.
She’s a Fake Patriot, who spends most of her time hobnobbing with world leaders at meetings. Why do all these female leaders like Meloni & Merkel & Ursula von Vampire insist on kissing & cuddling & giggling like schoolgirls with their male international counterparts on the world stage? Why is that necessary?
I don’t remember ever seeing Margaret Thatcher doing that.
Or awkwardly dancing on stage like Treason May.
Mrs. Thatcher had more dignity.
Time will tell. My instinct says otherwise.
“Time”?
“Meloni supported (BUT NEVER ENACTED) a naval blockade to halt illegal immigration.”
Here’s a great comment from the public on this subject:
“WE HAVE A FIGHT ON OUR HANDS, PATRIOTS.
Our people have built something extraordinary, and we need to make it known that we will not let it be taken by those that do not cherish it. Those that can talk, or write eloquently . . . Please do it. Those that can march for freedom . . Walk on . Those that can raise flags. . . Raise your colours. If we can all find a way to make a contribution, it will work. They will try to convince us otherwise, but our UNITY IS OUR STRENGTH.”
” Don’t underestimate the strength of our people. Unify locally, and we will unify nationally. . . I love keyboard warriors. Spread those words everywhere you can, and tell your children to have children. We could turn this around in one generation.”
Here is a true Patriot: businessman James Holmes, who said,
““We’ve been indoctrinated to be ashamed of our flag. If you’re ashamed of it, why work hard and pay taxes for your country?”
Massive Union Jack flag placed on side of former council building
The revenge of the ignored classes is coming. I can hear it. Remigration. Repatriation. Deportation.
What an exceptionally well written article. A pleasure to read, even the few parts I might disagree or quibble with,
Thank you!
Excellent, pure poetry.
Appreciate that. It almost wrote itself.
An enjoyable read, thank you.
Thank you. Alas it’s almost too obvious to write.
A very well written article, and so true!
Thanks. It almost wrote itself!
Brilliant appraisal thanks Clive
Thank you!
Revenge of white van man is basically this description of the Governing Class and the general population being put into practice:
Absolutely brilliant!
Wow! Fabulous quote!