Lib Dems hate Jon Pertwee, and UKIP wants a straight Doctor most

Data on Doctor Who.

New Statesman contributor Jonn Elledge points out that YouGov has surveyed people's thoughts on Doctor Who. Which wouldn't be particularly notable, except for the fact that YouGov always breaks down surveys by demographics, including political affiliation.

So we find out that:

  • Only 31 per cent of people describe themselves as "interested in Doctor Who"; but that ranges from 26 per cent of UKIP voters to 41 per cent of Liberal Democrats. Interest also varies by age, with people aged between 40 and 59 most likely to be interested, and people aged over 60 least likely. (People under 18 were not interviewed)
  • When people were asked to pick their favourite Doctor, the top three were David Tennant, Tom Baker and Matt Smith. While the age breakdown was relatively unsurprising for some – with 18-24 year olds liking Matt Smith more than any other age group, and 40-59 year olds liking Tom Baker more than any other age group – David Tennant was the runaway favourite amongst every single demographic breakdown.
  • Jon Pertwee is the most right-wing Doctor, beloved by 11 per cent of Tories and 13 per cent of UKIP voters, and 0 per cent of Lib Dems.
  • Ladies love cool Dave. Tennant is the favourite of 55 per cent of women.
  • When asked what about the next Doctor, a little over half thought it was important that they were British. Whether or not they should be male had a strong party breakdown: 60 per cent of Tories and UKIP voters think it's important, and just 40 per cent of Labourites and Lib Dems.
  • UKIP wants a gay Doctor least: 36 per cent of them think it's important the Doctor be heterosexual, compared to just 9 per cent of Labourites.
  • But by far the biggest gap comes when respondents are asked whether or not it is important that actor who plays the Doctor, a thousand-year-old time-travelling alien from the planet Gallifrey, be white. Just 5 per cent of Lib Dems thought it was; 50 per cent of members of the libertarian, non-racist party seeking Britain's withdrawal from the EU do.

The whole survey must be taken with a grain of salt, though. After all, YouGov refer to the character as "Doctor Who", and we all know that's a sure sign of someone who can't be trusted.

Peter Davison, the fifth Doctor, beloved by 6 per cent of 20-39 year-olds. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Show Hide image

Labour must reclaim English patriotism if we are to beat Ukip and the Tories

We can't talk about the future of our country unless we can discuss the past. 

I was a parliamentary candidate for Thurrock, but the place which I currently call home is Hackney, London. This distinction is worth explaining. The questions of Labour and Englishness – what exactly is the English problem that we’re trying to solve, why do we need a progressive patriotism, does it already exist, if not why not and if we had one what would it look like? – are, above all, questions of identity and place. We need to build a patriotism that includes and resonates with residents of both Hackney and Thurrock. Currently they are very far apart. 

I’m the little girl who sat on her dad’s shoulders to wave a flag at Princess Anne’s first wedding. And I was also, like Sadiq Khan, waving a flag at the Silver Jubilee in 1977. I’m an ex-Catholic, I’m a Londoner, I’m English and I’m a woman, and all of those identities are important although not necessarily equally so and not necessarily all of the time.

But I’m also a member of the Labour party, not only as a candidate, but now as an activist in Hackney. And that is where I see the difference very strongly between Hackney and what I experienced in Thurrock. 

Thurrock was Ukip ground zero last year - 12,000 people voted for Ukip in a general election for the first time, on top of the 3,500 that had voted for them before in 2010. Most of those 12,000 people had either not voted before, or had voted Labour. 

This isn’t just about being in two different places. Sometimes it feels like more than being in two different countries, or even like being on two different planets. The reality is that large swathes of Labour’s members and supporters don’t identify as patriotic, fundamentally because patriotism has been seized and colonised by the right. We need to understand that, by allowing them to seize it, we are losing an opportunity to be able to reclaim our past. 

We do not have any legitimacy to talk about the future of our country unless we can talk about our past in a better way. We have tried but our efforts have been half-hearted. Take Ed Miliband's call for One Nation Labour, which ended up amounting to a washed-out Union Jack as a visual for our brand. It could have been so much better – an opportunity for an intellectual rebranding and a seizure of Conservative territory for our own ends. Ultimately One Nation Labour was a slogan and not a project. 

There is a section of the left which has a distinct discomfort with the idea of pride in country. It has swallowed the right-wing myth that England’s successes have all been Conservative ones. This is a lie, but one that has spread very effectively. The left’s willingness to swallow it means that we are still living in a Thatcherite paradigm. It is no wonder progressives revolt at the idea of patriotism, when the right’s ideas of duty and authority quash our ideas of ambitions for equality, opportunity for all and challenging injustice. But we risk denying our successes by allowing the right to define Englishness. It’s England that helped establish the principle of the right to vote, the rule of law, equal suffrage, and the fight against racism. 

If Englishness is going to mean anything in modern England, it needs to be as important for those who feel that perhaps they aren’t English as it is for those who feel that they definitely are. And a place must be reserved for those who, though technically English, don’t see their own story within the Conservative myth of Englishness. 

Although this reclaiming is electorally essential, it is not an electoral gimmick. It is fundamental to who we are. Even if we didn’t need it to win, I would be arguing for it.

We need to make sure that progressive patriotism reclaims the visual language that the Conservatives use to dress up their regressive patriotism. Women need to be as much in the pantheon of the radicals as part of the visual identity of Englishness. Women tend to either be there by birth or by marriage, or we are abstract manifestations of ideals like "justice" or "truth" – as seen on city halls and civic buildings across the country. But English women need to be real, rather than just ideal. Englishness does need to be focused on place and connection, and it should include Mary Wollstonecraft and Sylvia Pankhurst as well as Wat Tyler and Thomas Paine. 

We can’t pretend that we’re always right. The most patriotic thing you can do is to admit sometimes that you’re wrong, so that your country can be better. I love my country, for all its faults. But I do not live with them. I try to make my country better. That is progressive patriotism. And I know all of us who want to be part of this can be part of it. 

This article is based on Polly’s contribution to Who Speaks to England? Labour’s English challenge, a new book published today by the Fabian Society and the Centre for English Identity and Politics at the University of Winchester.