In November 2023 Geert Wilders led his Right-wing Freedom Party to a shock election victory, before negotiating a coalition with three other parties. But this morning Wilders walked out, leading to the likely collapse of the Dutch government.

On the other side of the North Sea, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage ought to be paying close attention. The unravelling of the Dutch experiment is an object lesson in how not to take power as a populist.

Wilders’s big mistake was agreeing to participate in a government without securing the means of delivering on his most important promises. The first sign of trouble came when he agreed not to become prime minister, despite the fact that he’s the leader of the biggest party. Instead, Dick Schoof — a former civil servant and political independent — was chosen for the role.

Yet, more seriously, Wilders failed to get a binding pledge from his coalition partners on meaningful immigration reform. In particular, he wanted the Netherlands to have the strictest asylum system in Europe and to stop building new asylum centres. When the other parties used the leeway in the coalition agreement to frustrate these objectives, Wilders said he had no choice but to pull his ministers out of the coalition.

In office, but clearly not in power, his Freedom Party has seen its position deteriorate in the polls. Meanwhile, support for the other populist parties in the coalition — the Farmer-Citizen Movement and New Social Contract — has collapsed.

As the British Tories found out between 2019 and 2024, voters expect action from those who make a point of challenging the establishment — and severely punish non-delivery. Wilders was therefore right to make his escape today, but wrong to walk into the trap of a government he couldn’t control.

Unlike Wilders, Farage has the advantage of the British electoral system, which could give him a majority on around 30% of the vote. Even if Reform UK falls short, the party would only need one coalition partner — almost certainly the Conservatives — to control the Commons.

However, Farage still needs to be fully prepared. For a start, any agreement with the Tories would be best hammered out before the next election. Unlike the Dutch, who can spend months forming a new government, the British expect victorious parties to take control as soon as possible after a general election. In 2010, it took the Tories and Liberal Democrats just five days to form their coalition. Farage would be foolish to entrust the stability of his government to such a hurried process.

Much the same is true if he doesn’t need the Tories to enter Downing Street. Ultimately, all governments are coalitions, insofar as they are between the elected politicians and the permanent administrative and judicial apparatus of the state. Even if officialdom doesn’t actively conspire against a Farage government, the inertia and dysfunction of the system will inevitably expose any deficiency in Reform’s readiness for power.

So far, the omens aren’t good. In February, Reform’s energy policy was met with universal derision from both proponents and opponents of Net Zero. Last week, giveaway announcements on both taxes and benefits provoked fears that the numbers don’t add up. Worst of all for a populist party, doubts linger over the seriousness of Reform’s immigration policy.

Of course, a British general election is still years away. But if Farage doesn’t up his game, then he risks sharing Wilders’ fate.

---

Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

---