Thread by @duncanmcdonnell

I'm looking through the classifications of parties in the Norris-Inglehart book.

I think most Italian politics and populist experts would be very surprised to find the Partito Democratico classified as 'populist' and Forza Italia as 'pluralist'.

And those familiar with the Swiss People's Party will raise an eyebrow at it no longer being considered populist:

Same goes for the Danish People's Party:

Big shock as heavyweight Fidesz fails to make the cut, but the rank outsider Irish Green Party gets over the line.

They'll be singing in the pubs of Dublin about this one for many an evening.

Norway, despite the best efforts of the Progress Party...

Nul Points.

The UK's Celtic and Green populist fringe:

For those interested, here's how they have calculated the populism scores for parties:

Like the Chapel Hill experts themselves who've responded to this thread, I find this problematic. Especially using anti-corruption salience as one of two key measures.

As Bartek explains in the tweet below, that appears to be how you get Fidesz as 'pluralist' not 'populist'

(it's also how you may get the Irish Green Party and Italian Partito Democratico as populist, but Forza Italia and Danish People's Party as not).

https://twitter.com/bartekpytlas/status/1094483834094211073

And, as Annika says here, those results should have set alarm bells ringing.

https://twitter.com/DrAnnikaWerner/status/1094499683563560960

Anyway, that's my 2 cents on it all. Others might think differently and I'm sure the book will get lots of citations.

And, on some level, you've got to sit back and marvel at the chutzpah here.

This thread started as a quick reflection on Saturday afternoon and has got a lot of attention since.

In interests of transparency, the classifications appendix for the book is here: dropbox.com/s/jfxbdl5zln1g… … …

And it's fair to tag @PippaN15, in case she wants to respond.