Why ‘grifter' has become the go-to political insult of 2025
This year alone, Zarah Sultana, the former Labour MP and founder of a new left party with Jeremy Corbyn, called the Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, a 'billionaire-backed grifter' (perhaps borrowing from the language of Coutts staff who referred to him as a 'disingenuous grifter' when his bank account was closed two years ago). Sultana, in turn, was accused of being a 'grifter' duping 'honest socialists' by the journalist Paul Mason.
When giving evidence at the Covid inquiry, the Spectator editor and former cabinet minister, Michael Gove, called the lawyer Jolyon Maugham, whose Good Law Project campaign group pursued PPE contract cases, a 'politically motivated grifter'. Meanwhile, the journalist and author James Ball accused the New York University history professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat of 'resistance grift' for suggesting the US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, is trying to control the population by spreading disease.
In a recent podcast, the Atlantic writer David Frum called Donald Trump's presidency the 'grift machine', while the US president was also called 'grifter-in-chief' by Florida congressman Maxwell Frost. Two years ago, it was the Sussexes who were memorably called 'fucking grifters' by Spotify's head of podcast innovation, Bill Simmons, after their multiyear deal with the platform ended after just 12 episodes.
From 2017-24, the written use of the word 'grifter' has more than doubled, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). But over the past few months in particular, it has been striking how often the term – both grifter and grift – is cropping up in our political discourse. In April this year, it made its debut in parliament: it was used in a House of Commons debate on the impact of digital platforms on democracy by the Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham, Max Wilkinson. 'You find a mad and hateful narrative. You tell everyone it is free speech, and before you know it, you might be lucky enough to become a successful online grifter with your top off,' he said. 'Perhaps you will be an MP, or maybe even the president of America.'
'Grifter', according to the OED, is a variant of the US slang 'grafter': someone who 'makes money by shady or dishonest means; a thief; a swindler' – or 'one who practises 'graft', especially in public life; a politician, official, etc, who misuses his or her position in order to reap dishonest gain or advantage'. That second meaning has clearly captured the political zeitgeist. 'It's a kind of shorthand for inviting suspicion about the methods and motivations of someone with an opposing viewpoint,' Fiona McPherson, an executive editor at the OED, told me.
Why is it that we're not only disagreeing with our political opponents, but assuming they are con artists somehow profiting from what we deem to be their bad opinions, policies and rhetorical style? Spivs who are in it for nefarious ends rather than simply wrong-headed?
When you search the term 'grifter' on sites such as Reddit and TikTok, it is often used in relation to influencers – wellness gurus, pickup artists, life coaches, crypto bros. So many online subcultures now dabble in essentially the same business model: sowing insecurity and then charging people with the promise to rid them of it. Wherever the algorithm leads you, from sleep coaches for knackered new mums to gym rats for lonely boys, you are likely being exposed, day in, day out, to some form of grift.
When politicians themselves mimic such influencers – Farage and the shadow justice secretary, Robert Jenrick, for example, now trade in to-camera vertical videos that gain millions of views – it is hard to ignore the similarities. Suspicions of British politicians' motives in general are high, sparked by the 2009 expenses scandal and intensifying over the past few years of crony Covid contracts and ministers bagging freebies.
The rise of the 'true scam' genre also reveals our morbid fascination with grift. From the Tinder Swindler to Fyre festival, and Theranos to the Captain Tom Foundation, stories of the hubris and humiliation of people perceived to be on the make with our money dominate TV documentaries, long-form journalism and investigative podcasts. All this and you can barely open your banking app today without warnings about the nefarious means used by scammers to winkle money out of you. Fraud is the most common crime in England and Wales, with the highest number of cases recorded last year.
In the resulting atmosphere of ambient paranoia, perhaps it's little wonder we're on the lookout for 'grifters' – and why the insult appears to resonate. So welcome to the Age of Grift: if you're not spotting it, you're probably on the end of it.
Anoosh Chakelian is Britain editor of the New Statesman
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Notting Hill face-recognition technology will be used without bias
Metropolitan Police boss Sir Mark Rowley has said live facial recognition (LFR) technology will be used without bias amid concerns about it being deployed at this year's Notting Hill Carnival. In a letter to the commissioner, 11 groups had said the technology is a 'mass surveillance tool that treats all carnival-goers as potential suspects' and has 'no place at one of London's biggest cultural celebrations'. It also said that LFR technology was 'less accurate for women and people of colour' in certain settings. Responding to the concerns, Sir Mark said the technology will help locate any dangerous individuals attending Notting Hill carnival over the August bank holiday weekend. He wrote that when the technology was used at the carnival in 2016 and 2017, it 'did not build public confidence', but has since 'significantly improved' and now performs to a 'much higher standard'. Sir Mark acknowledged concerns about bias in facial recognition technology, adding that the force has selected the algorithm it uses 'with care' and knows how to use it in a non-discriminatory way. It comes after the letter, signed by groups including Liberty and Big Brother Watch, said there is 'no clear legal basis' for Scotland Yard's use of LFR. The letter added: 'Notting Hill Carnival is an event that specifically celebrates the British African Caribbean community, yet the MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) is choosing to use a technology with a well-documented history of inaccurate outcomes and racial bias.' Rebecca Vincent, interim director at Big Brother Watch, said she is 'deeply disappointed' that the Met 'has chosen to dig its heels in' after the call to scrap the 'Orwellian' technology. She added: 'We all want criminals off the streets, but turning (the) carnival into a mass police line-up is not the way to do it.' About 7,000 officers and staff will be deployed each day over the weekend. LFR cameras will be used by police at the carnival to search for people who are marked as being wanted on the police national computer. Meanwhile, a UK retail facial recognition system has reported its highest-ever monthly total of suspect alerts, its operators say. In July 2025, Facewatch sent 43,602 alerts to subscriber retail stores – the equivalent of more than 10,000 suspects flagged every week for the first time and a 134.8% increase compared to July 2024 (18,564). Over the 12 months to July 31, Facewatch said it recorded 407,771 alerts in total, with current live data already showing the rising trend continuing into August. Nick Fisher, chief executive of Facewatch, said: 'July's record numbers are a further stark warning that retailers and their employees are facing unprecedented levels of criminal activity, including violent and aggressive behaviour.' A spokeswoman for Big Brother Watch said: 'This technology turns shoppers into walking barcodes and makes us a nation of suspects, with devastating consequences for people's lives when it inevitably makes mistakes.'
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The British Right should put Kent before Kyiv
Shortly after the local elections, in which the Conservative Party suffered one of its worst electoral defeats in living memory, I addressed a small group of shell-shocked Tories and warned them that the results indicated their party faced an existential challenge unlike any it had faced in its long history. To my astonishment, the post-speech discussion veered instantly towards the war in Ukraine and the US vice-president's perceived incivility towards President Zelensky. Momentarily losing my composure, I accused them of suffering from 'Ukraine Brain' and argued that polling in the run-up to the elections had made it unambiguously clear that the British people would rather its leaders prioritise 'the defence of Kent over the defence of Kiev [sic]'. There followed a stunned silence that was broken eventually by an aggressively whispered ' Kyiv.' The furious intensity with which so many Tories of a particular age follow every twist and turn of the Russia-Ukraine conflict – even when staring in the face of electoral oblivion – can be hard to understand. Perhaps the most plausible explanation is that it is psychological displacement, a way to sidestep the spectre of national decline by chasing the phantom of a geopolitical influence that has long since faded. The incident returned to my mind when reading Charles Moore's bracing column last weekend, in which he warned that National Conservatives like the US vice-president and myself were, as the headline theatrically put it, flirting with 'a perverted patriotism that may yet lead to neo-fascism'. In a Gallic modulation of Godwin's Law, Moore claimed he had detected an echo of the Vichy slogan ' Famille, Travail, Patrie ' ('Family, Work, Country') in the title of a speech I had given – 'Faith, Family, Flag, Freedom' – in which I argued that the New Right should adopt a version of Augustine's ordo amoris as the organising principle for a conservative politics of home and belonging. I did not mention Ukraine or Russia once, but my discussion of the importance of family and nationhood at a major conservative conference was to his mind evidence that I was a Pétainiste and so, by extension, a Poutiniste. He then cited my accurate observation that more people face penalties for free speech in Britain than in Russia as proof of my sympathy for the latter, when my point was to underscore the severity of Britain's free-speech crisis by comparing it to the most notoriously oppressive regime I could think of. (And, in any event, to note that X is worse than Y in respect of Z is not to endorse Y in any respect.) Baffled though I was by his reasoning, I found it hard to disagree with Moore's claim that a tension is indeed emerging across the Western world on the Right, on the neuralgic question of how to weigh national interest against risky and costly involvement in faraway conflicts. He was right too to note that the issue has become a key point of contention among National Conservatives, a global movement of the New Right numbering thousands of Right-wing politicians, academics, and commentators from dozens of countries. Where he went wrong was thinking that there is a single leading figure in the movement who does not unequivocally condemn Russia's unprovoked violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, or salute the extraordinary courage that nation has shown in defending itself against Putin's shameless aggression. Some view support for Ukraine as a moral and strategic stand against authoritarianism and are convinced that appeasement through negotiations with Russia will only embolden further aggression. Others argue that Western support is prolonging an unwinnable war and inflicting far greater suffering and destruction on Ukraine than might have been avoided had peace negotiations been pursued more vigorously early on. The debate highlights the principled realism of the New Right, a realism that tries to balance the claims of justice with the competing priorities of nations affected in different ways and to different degrees by geopolitical conflict. Regrettably, that is an approach that seems to enrage the Old Right, which insists on refracting almost every geopolitical crisis through the prism of the 1930s and 1940s. Steeped in the post-war myths of British exceptionalism – Chamberlain's folly, Churchill's heroism, the grit of the Blitz – they insist on treating Putin as Hitler, Zelensky as Churchill, Ukraine as Poland, and any pursuit of peaceful resolution as the appeasement of a Chamberlain or the collaboration of a Pétain. This mindset – 'World War Two Brain,' in the idiolect of the Right-wing Zoomers who are most mystified by it – motivates hopelessly muddled thinking and ignores the realpolitik of Russia's longstanding paranoia over Nato, the conflict's devastating effects on European energy prices, and the disastrous realignment of Russia with China. It is fuelling a confrontation that is inflicting damage on Ukraine from which it will take decades to recover, it is straining Britain's resources amidst a flurry of domestic challenges unprecedented in living memory, and it is demonising voices calling for peace and restraint. Thankfully, this is a mindset that the US vice-president unequivocally rejects. He understands that dewy-eyed idealism and anachronistic analogies are a recipe for conflict and instability, and that America must pursue peace through strength as it navigates a multipolar world that could not be more different from the geopolitical landscape that vanished nearly a century ago. As for the emerging figures on Britain's New Right, it is they alone who seem to understand that the time has come to rally behind politicians who will put Kent before Kyiv, Glasgow before Gaza, and Bournemouth before Beijing.
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Badenoch vows crackdown on subsidised cars for benefits claimants
Kemi Badenoch has vowed to crack down on subsidised cars for benefits claimants. The Motability scheme received a record £2.8bn of taxpayer cash last year to assist with the funding of new cars for people in receipt of mobility benefits. The Telegraph revealed in March that successful claimants can still apply for subsidised top-of-the-range BMWs worth more than £50,000 despite cuts to welfare support elsewhere. The Conservative leader vowed that only people with 'serious proven disabilities' would be eligible for the scheme if she won power at the next general election. Critics have branded the scheme out of control after it emerged last month that 40 cars were given to people with tennis elbow – a condition the NHS says 'usually goes away with rest'. More than 400 people with sleeping disorders accessed a vehicle through the scheme last year, as well as 20 with a 'food intolerance' and 20 more who cited constipation. Sharing a screenshot of The Telegraph's reporting from earlier this year, Mrs Badenoch said: 'Hard-working taxpayers are funding subsidised cars for constipation and tennis elbow. Here's how we'll stop the scam. 'Motability was created to help people with genuine mobility problems lease a car, scooter or powered wheelchair using part of their disability benefit. 'That's fair. We all want people who truly can't get around to live with dignity. But look what's really happening – 32,000 cars for 'anxiety or depressive disorders '. Even cars for 'tennis elbow', constipation, and food intolerance.' Mrs Badenoch went on to cite Motability's statistics, which show almost one in five new cars registered in 2024 were bought for the scheme. She added: 'We've got pensioners cutting back on heating because of Labour's winter fuel cuts, while a drunk driver can get a brand new car because they've got an 'alcohol problem'. How is that fair? 'Under my leadership, the Conservatives will fix this. Tighten the rules so only serious, proven disabilities qualify. Zero tolerance for scammers and online fraud. End the 'get a free car for anything' culture – because taxpayers deserve fairness.' Hardworking taxpayers are funding subsidised cars for constipation and tennis elbow. Here's how we'll stop the scam🧵👇 — Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) August 19, 2025 Earlier this year, Motability Operations admitted to finding more than 5,000 cases of abuse of its taxpayer-subsidised scheme. A total of 5,300 customers – an average of 15 per day – were removed from the service last year after investigations into misuse. As well as helping benefits claimants access cars, Motability covers insurance costs and has installed 66,000 charging points at the homes of people on benefits free of charge. Applicants to the scheme must prove that such conditions affect their mobility to be eligible. Around 815,000 people now qualify for Motability, up from 650,000 two years ago. The average user of a taxpayer-subsidised car is in their 50s. Mrs Badenoch's crackdown is one of the first detailed policy announcements she has made in more than nine months as Conservative leader. She has tended to shy away from detailed commitments to re-establish her party's 'first principles' following its historic loss at the last election, which left it with just 121 seats. The announcements that have been made by Mrs Badenoch include a vow to deport all Channel migrants who reach the UK illegally and a reversal of Labour's tax raid on farmers. Last month, the Tory leader said the word 'disabled' has lost all meaning as a result of Britain's booming welfare society. At a speech in central London, Mrs Badenoch admitted the Tories had not always been 'clear enough' that they were still the party of work in the mould of the late Norman Tebbit. Warning that the UK was 'sitting on a ticking time bomb' of spiralling welfare dependency, Mrs Badenoch said the current size of the state may eventually 'collapse the economy'. Her MPs voted against Sir Keir Starmer's flagship benefit reforms in July because he failed to commit to bringing down the overall welfare bill while also not promising to raise taxes at the next Budget in the autumn.
