Hope you had a great weekend. Welcome to this week’s special Monday edition of The Opinion Brief. You may have been wondering where the newsletter was on Friday, but with so much new research released over the weekend that we’re really excited to share, we thought we’d save the newsletter for today.
Dissenting Disruptors: Our latest report is a deep dive into Britain’s populist right, what makes them distinct, and the type of change they want to see.
Our guide to the elections: With less than two weeks to go until parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales and local elections in parts of England, we’re sharing our latest polling and projections, and new analysis of what is driving the vote.
The Mandelson saga - what does it mean for trust in politics? Our latest snap poll for the Sunday Times looks at how Britons are responding to the Mandelson scandal, and how it reflects on politicians.
What do Britons think of the warfare versus welfare debate? Public opinion on defence spending.
And remember you can listen to us talking through our latest insights on our Opinion Brief podcast below. In last week’s episode, we dug into our election guide in more detail, and examined what Britons really think about the warfare-welfare spending debate. And don’t forget to tune in this Thursday morning, where we’ll be discussing the Dissenting Disruptors report.
This weekend, we published a deep-dive report into the worldviews and attitudes of one of our Seven Segments, the Dissenting Disruptors. It’s a comprehensive study into the populist right in Britain today, where they diverge and converge with the wider British public, and what makes them distinct from populist movements in other countries.
Why study Dissenting Disruptors?
It’s not hard to find books, articles or reports about the rise of the populist right in Britain. Yet many carry a thinly - or not so thinly - veiled agenda.Some commentary seeks to explain away the views of those on the right as the product of misinformation or manipulation - as though their adherents lack agency or a true understanding of the world. Others, typically from the edges of the right itself, seek to normalise fringe beliefs as representative of a much wider group. Almost all of it focuses on high-profile figures and parties rather than the people who have actually turned to the populist right.
In this report, we aim to bring greater clarity and nuance to our understanding of one of the largest, and most influential, groups in British politics. In doing so, we hope to distinguish between fringe, extreme views, and which are wider concerns shared by many Britons. Britain's populist right is not simply an echo of movements in the US and elsewhere, and it is far from a monolith.
Who are Dissenting Disruptors?
Dissenting Disruptors make up around 20 per cent of the UK population. Most reject multiculturalism, believe that free speech is under threat, and feel that Islam is incompatible with British values. Almost all - 94 per cent - say that politicians lack respect for people like them, and three in five believe that a secret group of powerful elites controls major world events.
Half of Dissenting Disruptors (51 per cent) believe Britain could face a civil war within the next ten years.
"Bring back Guy Fawkes. I'll help him."
Hannah, retired, Derbyshire
"It's going to be a breaking point in my opinion. (...) whatever powers that be, they seem to want civil war. (...) I don't think violence is the way in general at all, but something's got to change. (...) Do we live in a democracy if no one actually gets what they vote for?" Pete, music producer, Manchester
They can be found in every demographic group and every part of the country, but are more likely than others to live in post-industrial towns close to where they grew up, and less likely to have attended university. They are the most financially insecure of our Seven Segments - only three in ten describe themselves as financially comfortable - and report the lowest life satisfaction of any group. Two-thirds say they feel disconnected from society. In some ways, these experiences shape their politics: hardship fuels a sense that the social contract is broken and that the system is rigged, while disconnection and atomisation drive fears about migration and integration.
"For me, I just think the average person or the average family who go out to work, work hard, earn a decent wage, they're just forgotten about. We don't get help with anything. We're just left to fend for ourselves almost."
Sarah, SEND teacher, Wolverhampton
"The problem is it's all segregated. (...) Most people don't know their neighbours anymore (...) 10 years ago when I was living at my parents', we knew everyone 10 doors down, both ways and across the road. Now, I think my parents only know the two people that are directly next to them."
Dean, IT manager, Dartford
What makes Britain’s populist right unique?
Dissenting Disruptors are not MAGA:much of the commentary on Britain’s populist right assumes that it is a transatlantic import - that we’re seeing a delayed version of the tide that brought Donald Trump into power. Yet Dissenting Disruptors show how Britain's right stands out.
Dissenting Disruptors are not outliers on the social issues that have become faultlines elsewhere. Few want to roll back progress on gay rights, restrict abortion access, or return to traditional gender roles.
Only a third hold a positive view of Donald Trump, and few believe he has been good for the world. On these questions, Dissenting Disruptors are closer to the British median voter than to counterparts across the Atlantic.
However, there’s an important caveat here: the Dissenting Disruptors you see on X are distinct, and in some ways look more similar to US populists. Around a quarter of Dissenting Disruptors say they use X most days, and those who do look meaningfully different from the rest of the group. They are far more likely to approve of Trump, Tommy Robinson and Andrew Tate, more likely to believe women should be primarily responsible for raising children, and more likely to think abortion should be restricted. The loudest voices online are not representative of Dissenting Disruptors as a whole, but they do seem to be pulling in a more American direction.
Dissenting Disruptors are distinct from other segments on the British right:While Dissenting Disruptors share some common ground with other socially conservative segments (Rooted Patriots and Traditional Conservatives), they stand out in several important respects.
Free speech is one of the biggest wedge issues here. Dissenting Disruptors are the closest Britain has to free speech absolutists: nine in ten believe people should be free to express their views even if they are controversial or offensive. Rooted Patriots take the opposite view - nine in ten believe we need to protect people from dangerous and hateful speech.
Their economic views also set them apart. Dissenting Disruptors are economic populists in a way that is hard to place on a left-right spectrum: they believe taxes on working people are too high, but are also worried that Britain is being ripped off by big business and billionaires, and want to see key industries renationalised. While Traditional Conservatives often appear Thatcherite in their economic views, Dissenting Disruptors are far more interventionist.
Dissenting Disruptors also diverge from other right-leaning segments in their desire for radical change: while Rooted Patriots and Traditional Conservatives favour incremental change, a majority of Dissenting Disruptors would like to “burn down” our institutions and start again from scratch.
Dissenting Disruptors are not a monolith:As a fifth of the British population, Dissenting Disruptors are far too large and varied a group to treat as a single block. Our research identifies three broad archetypes:
Reluctant Radicals:disillusioned and anti-system, frustrated with the status quo, but uneasy about the most radical solutions. Roughly five per cent of Britons are Reluctant Radicals.
Defiant Traditionalists:culturally conservative and anti-elite but seeking to restore traditional norms and order rather than overturn the system entirely. Roughly eight per cent of Britons are Defiant Traditionalists.
Hardline Nativists:the most radical and absolutist, deeply distrustful of institutions and often willing to back extreme, anti-democratic measures to fundamentally reshape the country. Many hold actively racist views. Roughly six per cent of Britons are Hardline Nativists.
Many priorities and concerns of Dissenting Disruptors are widely-felt across the public. These concerns - including about illegal migration - should not be dismissed as beyond the mainstream or beyond the pale.
However, Dissenting Disruptors are more out-of-step with the median of the public when it comes to attitudes toward minority groups in Britain, and particularly in their views on Islam. Some hold openly racist views. Distinguishing clearly between these beliefs shows which are fringe (and indeed not even shared among many populist right Britons themselves) when it comes to ethnic minorities, political violence and gender equality in Britain today.
You can find the full report below. Do also read Tom Calver’s excellent writeup of the study here.
And don’t forget, Dissenting Disruptors are just one of More in Common’s Seven Segments - you can find out more about the rest of the segments and take the quiz to find out which segment you fall into here.
Your guide to the elections
In England, more than 5,000 council seats are up for election across 136 local authorities, including every London borough. Crucially, unlike last year's locals - which were concentrated in Conservative heartlands - this year's map covers a lot of Labour territory, making it a much more direct referendum on the government's first year and a half in power. Our projections suggest both Labour and the Conservatives could end up with around 700 seats or fewer, while Reform and the Greens could feasibly gain over 1,000.
Some key contests to watch: can Reform break through in places like Essex and Sunderland, pulling away voters from both main parties in very different kinds of council areas? And in London, can the Greens convert their surge in national polling - up from 8 per cent to around 13 per cent in a year - into major gains and even potential majorities in Labour strongholds like Hackney?
In Wales, it's a Senedd election under a brand new proportional list system and it looks set to end 27 years of continuous Labour government. Four in five Welsh voters - including nearly half of Labour's own supporters - say it's time for a change in how Wales is governed. Our latest polling has Reform and Plaid Cymru tied at 25 per cent of the vote each, with Labour on just 21 per cent, their lowest Welsh polling since devolution.
In terms of seats, Plaid are projected to emerge as the largest party on 30 seats, Reform just behind on 28 and Labour on 24. The complication for Plaid is what comes next: given the 49 seat threshold for a majority in the Senedd, the only feasible route to government runs through a coalition with a deeply unpopular Welsh Labour, a prospect that's already giving some potential Plaid voters pause.
I don’t know much about Plaid. I did hear that they’re supposed to be going in with Labour, aren’t they?
Lynn, Pembroke Dock
And in Scotland, voters are electing their Government too. The SNP have won every Holyrood election since 2007, but they're going into this one on their weakest polling in nearly two decades. Much like in Wales, this election looks set to be a vote for change - but in Scotland, it’s not clear who the “change” party is - voters are disillusioned with the SNP Government in Holyrood, but also angry with Labour in Westminster. In this context, this could be one of the most fragmented elections since devolution, with fragmentation on both sides of the independence debate.
Our MRP projects the SNP losing seats but remaining the largest party on 56, down from 64 in 2021. The other striking story may be Reform, who are on track to become the second-largest party at Holyrood on 22 seats, having won none five years ago. With 39 constituency seats projected to be decided by margins of under five points, the final shape of parliament could swing significantly on small shifts in vote share.
For our full guide to May 7 - including a closer look at key races, the factors driving the vote, and tips on how to interpret the results on the night, read our pre-election briefing below:
The Mandelson saga returns - what does it mean for trust in politics?
The past week has seen the Mandelson scandal return to the front pages. Working with the Sunday Times, we ran a snap poll as the story developed, following the Prime Minister’s statement and the Robbins testimony.
We found that far from being solely an SW1 story, the scandal has cut through with the wider public: 8 in 10 Britons have heard about Mandelson’s appointment as US Ambassador despite security concerns having been raised by officials. And those who have been following the story most closely are most likely to say it reflects badly on the government.
Over half of the public (53 per cent) believe Starmer was responsible for the appointment, while only 16 per cent blame Olly Robbins. And on the specific question of whether the Foreign Office faced pressure to get Mandelson in post, Britons lean heavily toward Oliver Robbins’ story: 46 per cent believe that Robbins was telling the truth, compared to only 13 per cent who believe the Prime Minister.
And for many Britons, the scandal has reflected very personally on the Prime Minister. While just over half of Britons think Starmer is a decent man (56 per cent), only a quarter (26 per cent) think he’s cut out to be Prime Minister. 37 per cent think he's a decent man who is not cut out to be Prime Minister; the same proportion say he’s not a decent man, and not cut out to be PM. Only a fifth of Britons (19 per cent) say he’s a decent man and fit to be Prime Minister.
Read my thread on the polling here, and you can see the Sunday Times piece here.
What do Britons think of the warfare-welfare debate?
Britons are feeling deeply insecure on the world stage. 86 per cent say the world is more dangerous than the one they grew up in, and confidence in the UK's ability to defend itself is low: only 17 per cent think we’re ready to defend ourselves in a war at home, and only 12 per cent think we’re ready to fight a war abroad.
Compounding this anxiety is a collapse in faith in the US as a security partner: only 38 per cent still see America as an ally, and just 40 per cent think Washington would come to the aid of a NATO ally under attack, an 18 point fall since last July.
Against that backdrop, it's no surprise that appetite for defence spending is high. 44 per cent say current levels aren't enough, against just 13 per cent who think they're too high. Reform voters are the most concerned: seven in ten say we do not spend enough on defence.
But the more interesting question - what Britons are willing to trade for higher defence spending - is more complicated.
At a top line level, a majority (62 per cent) of Britons support the call from Former NATO Secretary General George Robertson to increase defence investment by cutting welfare. Conservatives and Reform voters are firmly behind such a trade-off, whereas Labour's 2024 base is more split and less firm in its view (62 per cent in favour, but only 29 per cent strongly so, and with a substantial minority strongly opposed).
But when we ask about the specifics, support starts to drop. Unemployment benefits are the preferred cut - but even then, fewer than half of Britons overall back it - with 2024 Labour voters more opposed than in support. The NHS is essentially untouchable: 89 per cent say it shouldn't be cut to fund defence, including the vast majority of Reform and Conservative voters. Further disability benefit cuts for defence seems to be quite toxic, particularly for Labour's coalition.
And on the pension triple lock, it's Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, not Conservatives or Reform voters, who are marginally more open to cuts.
The public case for higher defence spending is there to be made, but as ever there are risks to an approach involving cutting spending in other areas. A trade-off of welfare against defence will not be as simple as it sometimes sounds. Politicians will have to make a case for sacrifice in the short term in the interests of national security.
As always, thank you for reading - and do reply to this email to let us know what you think.
We’re also going to be covering all of these topics in The Opinion Brief Podcast. If you have any questions about Dissenting Disruptors, the elections or the Mandelson scandal (or anything else at all!) let us know and we’ll be sure to answer them in the pod.
-1.png?upscale=true&width=588&upscale=true&name=The%20Opinion%20Brief%20(4)-1.png)
