Right-wing populism is surging across the West, from Trump’s election to Reform UK’s rise, to the spread of nationalism in Europe. In this challenging interview, Reform’s former leader Richard Tice, now deputy to Nigel Farage, is pressed on the philosophical foundations of the movement, challenged to locate it on the political spectrum, and asked whether the historical parallels with national socialism are dangerous. Interviewed by philosopher Hilary Lawson.

The full video interview will be released on the IAI next week. Subscribe now or sign up to our newsletter for updates.

Hilary Lawson: Where do you think Reform fits on the political spectrum from right to left? Your critics often describe you as “far right.” Would you agree with that description?

Richard Tice: I think the old labels of “left” and “right” are a bit tired, in the same way I think people are tired of the traditional nature of politics. Historically, we’ve had a two-party system largely dictated by the first-past-the-post voting system. But if you look at what’s going on at the moment, all of a sudden you’ve got the two main parties struggling in their vote share compared to historical trends. We’ve emerged seemingly out of nowhere in the last two or three years, and now we’re leading in the national polls. The Liberal Democrats’ vote share has increased. The Greens are doing well. You've actually got five parties that people are looking at and talking about.

  SUGGESTED VIEWING The rise of the new right With David Aaronovitch

Reform is in favour of the nationalization of a number of essential services: electricity, water, and steel. This doesn’t tie in with your traditional libertarian views about encouraging capitalism. How do you make sense of the two together?

Through that fundamental philosophy of making people’s lives better.

It’s really important to touch on the public ownership point, a term I will use over “nationalization.” I come from a business background, where I’ve done lots of collaborative partnerships and joint ventures. Take the example of water, which is not a competitive market—you can only buy it from one place. Maybe you could have 50% public ownership, 50% owned by long-term, patient capital. But the critical thing is that it is managed by some of the best people in the private sector. That is a model that we haven’t really had in the UK. But I know it can work.

___

We’re just completely overregulated, and it dampens down the application of good, old-fashioned common sense.

___

But traditional liberal economics promotes international competition to increase efficiency.

And it's absolutely failed. The people have been shafted, no ifs, no buts. If you fully privatize water companies without a proper regulatory framework, run by competent regulators—if you allow Chinese billionaires to own all our electricity transmission network and our gas networks—you're going to end up in a bad place.

So is liberal economics wrong?

It clearly hasn’t worked here. If you look at all our bills, they’ve gone through the roof. Water companies have ripped out a whole load of dividends, a whole load of high shareholder interest on shareholder loans. And look at the state of our water companies. Look at the state of our rivers. It hasn't worked.

I believe in free markets and competition, but it’s got to be smartly regulated. Not overregulated—smartly regulated. You need to make work pay and risk-taking pay. But don’t let monopolies, like utilities and steel, rip the customer off.

It sounds as if you’re in favour of free markets, so long as it’s not billionaire Chinese capitalists?