In public controversy after the Brexit referendum, social media played a prominent role. In particular, veteran populist anti-EU campaigner Nigel Farage used Twitter as a powerful weapon to further his cause. This paper compares a corpus of Farage's tweets in 2017-2018 with those by four other prominent British politicians (May, Johnson, Corbyn and Starmer). Quantitative corpus linguistics techniques are combined with qualitative analysis to examine how Farage creates a distinctive discursive style that is both down-to-earth and emotive. Various markers of register and affect are identified, and three core aspects of Farage's populist appeal to 'the people' are outlined, including the projection of negative emotions, especially anger/violence; the use of questions to provoke reactions; and the deployment of colloquial expressions and catchphrases to resonate with popular audiences and claim the status of 'common sense'. 1 INTRODUCTION The resurgence of populism and proliferation of social media are two phenomena that are often brought into association. On the one hand, media such as Twitter, Facebook or YouTube enable politicians to reach out to global audiences as never before-or to tune their messages to appeal to specific audiences on a more personal level. On the other hand, even though mass diffusion and audience-focused communications are available to all political movements, certain politicians have been seen to make particularly effective use of them. These are usually politicians with something that can be described as a 'populist style'-a term used rather loosely to mean a particularly provocative way of communicating that promotes radical political solutions, generally on the far right or left. Importantly in all this, we have to understand that such politicians' public appearances are not so much about offering constructive policy proposals, but more about styles of presenting themselves to the public (Ostiguy, 2009, p. 44). The populist style seems to be characterised by performances that project a strong identification with a homogenous 'people' , combined with the projection and vilification of internal or external 'enemies of the people' (Moffitt & Tormey, 2013). This pattern of 'glorification and denunciation' , as Vossen (2010, p. 24) puts it, is heightened by a sense of mounting crisis used to justify radical action (Moffitt & Tormey, 2013). In such performances, the identification with the virtuous people against a treacherous or 550