The Guardian noted a new report from IPPR yesterday.
The IPPR report summary is long-winded. The Guardian summary is worth noting in that case and was as follows:
According to the IPPR analysis, a majority of supporters of all big parties besides Reform, including the Conservatives, thought the nation was a civic community defined by shared values, and not an ethnic community defined by shared ancestry.
They then added:
When asked what made a good British citizen, the most popular answers were obeying the law, which was chosen by 64% of those polled, raising children to be kind (62%) and working hard (48%). Just 8% said it involved sticking up for British-born people above other groups, and 3% said it involved having white skin.
I am not sure how this stacks with the data they published on the thinking of Reform voters, but I am relieved by the data.
Finally, there was this:
When asked what would make them proud of the country in a decade's time, people prioritised good public services and quality of life: 69% said a well-functioning NHS, 53% cited affordability and 36% housing. Significantly fewer prioritised reductions in immigration (28%) or ethnic diversity (13%).
Overall, I share this simply because it suggests, as I do in today's video, that people are generally much nicer than commonly shared perceptions suggest, and that is a source of hope, not least when I want to talk about a politics of hope, which looks as though it would resonate much more in this country right now than the narratives that most politicians are promoting, based as most of them are around division and even hate.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I believe that there was a split in inter war Polish politics between those who were willing to welcome anyone who identified as Polish and wished to join in building a nation and those for whom ‘Polish’ was a purely ‘ethnic’ thing.
I certainly dont see being a member of a party with some decidedly opaque finances and ties with dubious foreign leaders as ‘Patriotic’
Might the main stream media present images of societal attitudes which more represent the wishes/purposes of those controlling these forms of mass communication/influence than a reasonably actual,objctive/accurate one?
The lack of objectivity in the majority of the UK’s mainstream media puts the country firmly in fantasy land given most people believe the distortions and lies this media propagates. This fantasy is of tragic proportions given the need for the state to spend heavily to help mitigate climate change.
Interesting report about the Fabian Society here
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/dec/31/zack-polanski-offering-voters-unicorns-and-fantasy-solutions-says-head-of-fabian-society
I have read it.
The summary is the Fabians have – as they have for a long time – forgotten whatever it was that made them radical once upon a time and are, instead, defenders of the neoliberal right of centre in which they and Labour feel very comfortable as it preserves their privilege.
This is another think tank that needs to be put out if its misery.
Quintus Fabius Maximus: A Roman general who fought Hannibal using a strategy of attrition, inspiring the adjective “Fabian” (cautious, slow to act).
Fabian Society: The socialist group adopted the name to reflect their belief in gradual, patient change, like the Roman general.
So patient in its ability to understand modern money it’s become a death wish for the country!
From the following document:-
“Talking about debt”
“The national debt should be thought of as a ‘mortgage’ not a ‘credit card’: while we must not ignore the size of the deficit or public debt, it is the affordability of repayments and the direction of debt over decades that matters most; the value of ‘peak’ debt is only one factor to take into account. Future fiscal rules should commit government to a significant reduction in debt over the medium term. If sustainable long-term growth is restored there is room for cautious optimism as previous governments have been successful in reducing public debt fairly quickly.”
https://fabians.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SpendingWisely-1.pdf
Thank you.
The Fabian’s are very far beyond their use by date.
They are half right. The national debt is not a credit card. As is their wont, they may be moving slowly to the position of accepting that the national debt is not a mortgage either.
From a cashflow perspective it is not even very much like a normal amortising mortgage. More like an interest only mortgage, where on redemption the capital is normally rolled over into a new mortgage and never repaid.
They might want to ask interesting questions such as what financial instruments are included in the national debt, who is lending to the government, to whom is any interest on the debt paid, and where do they get the sterling funds to invest.
It appears they to want to reduce the number of banknotes and coins in circulation, cut the issuance of premium bonds, and prevent pension funds and insurance companies acquiring the safe gilt edged long term investment bonds that they need.
Neatly played angle.
I think Beatrice and Sidney Webb would be appalled at the modern Labour Party and would favour Polanski rather than Starmer/Reeves.
I agree about Fabianism.
You cannot have an incremental policy of change in an age of information excess? You are are just going to get outstripped by the velocity of bad information (lies/myths/zonal shit). Talk about being asleep at the wheel………….
But for the post………well, there are obviously foundations for an alternative to build on.
I like your “politics of care” angle, that you’ve written about lately, and I’m also currently reading your book, “The Courageous State”. Your alternative method of evaluating well-being, using the concepts of potential and achievement within four major areas, immediately put me in mind of Martha Nussbaum, and the capability framework of which she and Amartya Sen are the major architects. If you haven’t already studied that, I would heartily recommend it.
A good book to start with is Nussbaum’s “Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach”: https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674072350. A summary of the model may be found on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach.
Many thanks
I know a bit about it: I would not claim expertise.
It is hard to avoid sounding as though I am making an ad hominem attack, but what I found both depressing and annoying about this Guardian interview was the fact that Joe Dromey is the son of the late Jack Dromey and Harriet Harman, two of New Labour’s “elite”. From what I have seen he has little or no experience outside of the world of political think tanks. He is just another example of today’s political class, out of touch with the real world and real people’s needs. As much a part of the problem, and offering no solutions.
Entirely agreed.
How did he get the job, I wonder?
Yeah!!
https://x.com/ZackPolanski/status/2006346117941023110
Very good.