Columnist Peter Hitchens has voiced apprehension regarding the increasing prominence of populist figures and movements, drawing parallels to historical and fictional extremist groups. In a recent commentary, Hitchens described the followers of a new national figure known as 'Tommo' as 'lumpy stormtroopers' and questioned the police's characterization of their public appearances as 'spontaneous.'

Hitchens identifies 'Tommo,' whose real name is Daniel Thomas, as a retired kidnapper and born-again Christian. He notes that Thomas's black-clad followers wore shorts, which he associates with a fictional 1930s fascist militia called the Black Shorts, led by Roderick Spode in P.G. Wodehouse's novels. Hitchens also draws a parallel between those advocating for a ban on burqas and the balaclava-wearing followers of 'Tommo.'

This trend, Hitchens argues, is occurring amidst the 'accelerating collapse of conventional parties,' particularly concerning immigration. He points to the rise of the National Rally in France and the AfD in Germany as examples of similar movements gaining traction. In the United States, he mentions the 'increasingly erratic' actions of Donald Trump.

However, Hitchens expresses skepticism about the long-term effectiveness of these movements, suggesting they, like conventional parties, will ultimately fail to address issues such as mass immigration. He cites Italy's Giorgia Meloni as an example of a leader who gained office by campaigning against migrants but has since been unable to significantly resolve the problem.

Hitchens likens these populist movements to 'miracle cures' that are ultimately discarded, leading to a realization that 'there is no cure, or that the cure will be much worse than the disease.' He concludes that the political system is decaying, leading to increased likelihood of poverty, disorder, and an 'intolerant state,' attributing this to the failures of governments over the past 30 years.

The article also touches on broader cultural and educational themes, with Hitchens criticizing a BBC Radio 4 documentary for what he perceives as a one-sided portrayal of the abolition of grammar schools. He argues that the program failed to acknowledge the success of individuals like Professor Diane Reay, who benefited from grammar school education, and omitted interviews with supporters of academic selection.