Populism is one of those political words that conceals as much as it illuminates. While I’m sure there are academics who could give me some rigorous definition of it, like most political insults it is thrown about with relative abandon, and often signifies nothing more than dislike of this or that policy.

But one version of it I’ve found useful when writing about the Conservative party is its current habit – on issue after issue – of speaking loudly while carrying a very small stick.

This is how we have ended up in the weird position of many commentators talking about the government in blood-curdling terms; not just populist, but sometimes “far right” too, when its actual record is anything but, for the most part. Rishi Sunak’s main priorities were banning smoking and reforming A-levels, hardly policies to set the heart racing.

At the same time, voters to whom all the rhetoric (and individual policies such as the Rwanda scheme) is supposed to appeal are left cold by the substance of the government’s programme. Even if ministers had managed to get a plane in the air before the election, would that really have offset their overseeing the highest levels of net immigration in modern history?

The prime minister’s proposal of bringing back national service is in exactly the same vein. Labour will be able to fire up younger voters with the threat of conscription, while voters who support national service will be disappointed to learn it’s not conventional conscription at all (only about 4% of 18-year-olds would be able to do the military component – and not one of them in combat........

© The Guardian