The 2016 report into 'The rise of anti-politics in Britain' evidences the claim that there has been a rise of antipolitical sentiment over the last six decades.
Growing numbers of British citizens disapprove of Governments & PM's, threatening democracy.
More and more citizens judge politicians to be out for themselves and their party.
Since the 1940s and 50s, the average level of government disapproval has risen by about 20% to just over 60%, and prime ministerial dissatisfaction has increased by almost 20% to around 55%.
Citizens hold more and more grievances with
formal politics.
Citizens increasingly judge politicians to be self-serving and not straight-talking, but also to be out of touch, all the same, a joke, and part of a broken, dysfunctional and unfair system.
Prototypical categories include ‘the toff’ (who went from public school to Oxbridge to Parliament) and ‘the career politician’ (with little experience of life beyond politics).
They are also thought to be ‘all the same’ and focused mainly on swing voters in marginal seats.
Citizens think of politicians as beneficiaries of a system that is broken and unfair, with too many safe seats and wasted votes.
Significantly, anti-political sentiment is associated with support for #populism: populist nationalism is VERY easy to mobilise, & is on the rise.
Populists position themselves as being different from politicians and parties in general; as representing ‘the people’ against ‘the out of touch and corrupt elites’; as representing ‘common sense’ in a field otherwise characterised by ‘vested interests’ and ‘grubby compromises’.
In doing so, they make a series of misrepresentations: that there is just one people; that they are of that people (and other politicians are not); that there is no mutual interdependence between that people and other peoples (whether external populations or internal minorities);
..that there's no need for negotiation & compromise between many competing interests & opinions; & that there's no need for procedures & institutions oriented towards negotiation, compromise, the making of collective decisions, & the imposing of binding decisions ("bureaucracy").
Negative feeling towards the institutions of formal politics strongly predicts support for populist nationalist parties: it's why our institutions are ALWAYS under attack from right-wing politicians & news platforms: they're pushing the buttons - it's WHAT THE CULTURE WAR IS FOR.
This report was written in 2016. Since then, everything has got MUCH worse: we're dangerously polarised, & democracy is under threat.
Educating people to have critical thinking skills is important, but first & foremost, politicians must behave more ethically. I fear the worst.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A multibillion-dollar scheme that exchanges cash from drug and gun sales in the UK for crypto—digital tokens hiding users’ identities—has enabling “sanctions evasions and the highest levels of organised crime, including providing money-laundering services to the Russian state”. theguardian.com/politics/2025/…
In 2023, the hedge fund co-founded by GB "News" owner Paul Marshall, who employs 60% of anti-Net Zero Reform UK's MPs, had £1.8 BILLION invested in fossil fuel firms.
Harborne (who has Thai citizenship under the name 'Chakrit Sakunkrit) also makes money from fossil fuels.
I and countless others are sick to death of the billionaire-funded Reform UK propaganda machine, GB “News”, and their decontextualised ‘facts’ that would make Goebbels blush.
Let’s examine the claim that “one quarter of foreign sex offenders come from just five countries”.
Yes, the raw data comes from a genuine Ministry of Justice (MoJ) prison census, but the way it’s being weaponised is deeply misleading.
The statistic sounds explosive, and deliberately so: a factoid engineered to sound like a revelation of hidden danger.
The right-wing information pipeline: a cherry-picked fragment of official data stripped of context, laundered through an opaquely funded “think tank” that isn't a think tank, amplified by billionaire-funded media, and weaponised by opportunistic politicians for electoral gain.
In the September 2025 @SkyNews Immigration Debate, chaired by Trevor “Muslims are not like us” Phillips, Reform UK’s head of policy Zia Yusuf made a series of inaccurate and highly misleading claims about migration, and more recently, on @BBCNewsnight, about social housing.
These assertions are easily disproved with publicly available data, but often go largely unchallenged on air, despite being about some of the most sensitive and polarised issues in politics.
Yusuf started by claiming that UK net migration “last year” was “about a million.”
When a newspaper repeatedly publishes misleading, distorted, or outright inaccurate stories, the public expects independent regulators to step in.
What if I told you the editor responsible for these stories is now in charge of writing the very rules that govern press ethics?
Privately educated Chris Evans, editor of The Daily Telegraph since 2014, has—since January 2024—simultaneously served as Chair of the IPSO Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, the body that drafts, reviews, and rewrites the ethical rulebook that the UK press is meant to follow.
Evans holds this regulatory role at a time when his own paper is producing more factual corrections and clarifications than almost any other major UK outlet — with an overwhelming concentration in politically weaponised right-wing themes.
The BBC isn’t perfect — but it’s ours. As coordinated attacks on its independence intensify, I warn that if we don’t defend it now, we may lose more than a broadcaster — we may lose a cornerstone of British democracy...
As a long-time critic of the @BBC, let me spell it out: what we’re seeing right now isn’t organic outrage — it’s a sophisticated coordinated campaign by ideological enemies and commercial competitors to undermine the BBC’s independence and funding.
If you can’t see that, you’re being played — and that’s exactly the point.
Let’s start with Michael Prescott, author of the dodgy dossier leaked exclusively to The Telegraph, who is a PR man and former political editor at Murdoch’s Sunday Times.
Growing numbers of people are angry and disillusioned with the political establishment.
Desperate voters are easy prey for manipulative populists—as they were in Germany in the 1930s.
But the problem isn't immigrants or religious minorities. It's always wealth distribution.
The story of wealth in Britain over the past eight decades since WWII is not one of ‘the invisible hand’, but of deliberate policy choices—choices that once built one of the most equal society in modern history, but now sustain one of the most unequal in the developed world.
Data tracking wealth distribution from 1945 to 2025 reveal a striking U-shaped curve: a rapid reduction in wealth inequality after World War II, making Britain one of the most equal countries on earth by the mid 1970s, followed by an unbroken rise.