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.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The three big mistakes the government has made in its Brexit talks

Nicola Sturgeon fears that the UK has no negotiating position at all. It's worse than she thinks. 

It’s fair to say that the first meeting of the government’s Brexit ministers and the leaders of the devolved legislatures did not go well.

Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon told reporters outside that it had all been “deeply frustrating”, and that it was impossible for her to undermine the United Kingdom’s negotiating position as “I can’t undermine something that doesn’t exist, and at the moment it doesn’t seem to me like there is a UK negotiating strategy”.

To which cynical observers might say: she would, wouldn’t she? It’s in Sturgeon’s interest to paint the Westminster government as clueless and operating in a way that puts Scotland’s interests at risk. Maybe so, but Carwyn Jones, her Welsh opposite number, tends to strike a more conciliatory figure at these events – he’s praised both George Osborne and David Cameron in the past.

So it’s hard not to be alarmed at his statement to the press that there is still “huge uncertainty” about what the British government’s negotiating position. Even Arlene Foster, the first minister in Northern Ireland, whose party, the DUP, is seen as an increasingly reliable ally for the Conservative government, could only really volunteer that “we’re in a negotiation and we will be in a negotiation and it will be complex”.

All of which makes Jeremy Corbyn’s one-liner in the Commons today that the government is pursuing neither hard Brexit nor soft Brexit but “chaotic Brexit” ring true.

It all adds to a growing suspicion that the government’s negotiating strategy might be, as Jacqui Smith once quipped of Ed Miliband’s policy review, something of “a pregnant panda – it's been a very long time in the making and no one's quite sure if there's anything in there anyway”.

That’s not the case – but the reality is not much more comforting. The government has long believed, as Philip Hammond put when being grilled by the House of Lords on the issue:

"There's an intrinsic tension here between democratic accountability of the government and effective negotiation with a third party. Our paramount objective must be to get a good deal for Britain. I am afraid will not be achieved by spelling out our negotiating strategy."

That was echoed by Theresa May in response to Corbyn’s claim that the government has no plan for Brexit:

 “We have a plan, which is not to give out details of the negotiation as they are being negotiated”

Are Hammond and May right? Well, sort of. There is an innate tension between democratic accountability and a good deal, of course. The more is known about what the government’s red lines in negotiations, the higher the price they will have to pay to protect. That’s why, sensibly, Hammond, both as Foreign Secretary during the dying days of David Cameron’s government, and now as Chancellor, has attempted to head off public commitments about the shape of the Brexit deal.

But – and it’s a big but – the government has already shown a great deal of its hand. May made three big reveals about the government’s Brexit strategy it in her conference speech: firstly, she started the clock ticking on when Britain will definitely leave the European Union, by saying she will activate Article 50 no later than 31 March 2017. Secondly, she said that Brexit meant that Britain would control its own borders. And thirdly, she said that Brexit meant that Britain would no longer be subject to the judgements of the European Court of Justice.

The first reveal means that there is no chance that any of 27 remaining nations of the European Union will break ranks and begin informal talks before Article 50 is triggered.

The second reveal makes it clear that Britain will leave the single market, because none of the four freedoms – of goods, services, capital or people – can be negotiated away, not least because of the fear of political contagion within the EU27, as an exit deal which allowed the United Kingdom to maintain the three other freedoms while giving up the fourth would cause increased pressure from Eurosceptics in western Europe.

And the third reveal makes it equally clear that Britain will leave the customs union as there is no way you can be part of a union if you do not wish to accept its legal arbiter.

So the government has already revealed its big priorities and has therefore jacked up the price, meaning that the arguments about not revealing the government’s hand is not as strong as it ideally would be.

The other problem, though, is this: Theresa May’s Brexit objectives cannot be met without a hard Brexit, with the only question the scale of the initial shock. As I’ve written before, there is a sense that the government might be able to “pay to play”, ie, in exchange for continuing to send money to Brussels and to member states, the United Kingdom could maintain a decent standard of access to the single market.

My impression is that the mood in Brussels now makes this very tricky. The tone coming out of Conservative party conference has left goodwill in short supply, meaning that a “pay to play” deal is unlikely. But the other problem is that, by leaving so much of its objectives in the dark, Theresa May is not really laying the groundwork for a situation where she can return to Britain with an exit deal where Britain pays large sums to the European Union for a worse deal than the one it has now. (By the way, that is very much the best case scenario for what she might come back with.) Silence may make for good negotiations in Brussels – but in terms of the negotiation that may follow swiftly after in Westminster, it has entirely the opposite effect. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.