For the last two years pollsters and pundits have been tracking the slow-motion collapse of the Conservative Party as it clung onto power without a mandate from the electorate. They were witnessing the death throes of the once powerful party after the last elected leader, Boris Johnson, was deposed by his Parliamentary party for unacceptable behaviour. A new leader was selected (twice) through a vote among Conservative Party members – a tiny, and demographically skewed, proportion of the UK population.

Social commentators, across the media, reported constantly on the values and mores that created a cultural environment where the very fabric of parliamentary decorum was regularly shredded and public discourse in matters political was reduced to taunts and judgements based on tribal identifications and identities. The concept of Parliamentarians being servants/representatives of their constituencies in Her Majesty’s Government had dissolved into a series of local contests between tribally affiliated ‘Power-Seekers’ to take their place in Westminster and climb their rosette’s hierarchy – literally at any cost to their integrity as public servants.

Changing alliances within the subgroups struggling for power inside the Party – a Party defined by the nihilism of Boris Johnson and the fracturing of the political culture brought on by its actions; lies to the Queen in proroguing Parliament, and lies to the electorate about the state of Brexit negotiations, and that’s not to forget lies about his actions during lockdown.

The vacuum created by Boris’s banishing was filled by political groups and individuals, each less ‘One Nation Tory’ and more strident ideologues on the right wing of the Parliamentary Party.

The Party was becoming ever further estranged from their electorate, who were struggling with the consequences of their government’s increasingly conspicuous incompetence. Failing to wield the levers of power to provide viable social and economic structures to support the electorate was the result of these Power-Seekers playing political football in the halls of power rather than ensuring the efficient administration of the government machinery that could enable the dreams of tens of millions of the population to come true in one of the largest economies in the world.

Groups like the European Research Group (ERG), and individuals associated with the group, became increasingly vocal and influential in forming the agenda of right-wing opinion before and after Brexit. This increasingly distanced the Party from the mass electorate – which ultimately led to the Party selecting the highly incompetent Liz Truss to head the government.

The incompetence was almost baked-in after the withdrawal of the whip from many highly qualified Parliamentarians in 2019 - though some had it given back. The short-term nihilism of these decisions led to a rot from the head down that eventually led to the walking dead of the final incarnation of the Sunak government.

With little or no support for increasingly radical policy proposals and incompetent implementation of new policies – from local ‘Leveling Up’ measures to international policies stemming from Brexit – the choice of successive Prime Ministers was largely a pragmatic selection of the ‘best of the rest’ – as judged by majority votes by the Parliamentary Party - from a very shallow pool of competency to create and implement policies and practices to meet the needs of the electorate.

The pool of competency is not just a lazily spun meme; a clever turn of phrase.

Competency in delivering polices and practices is a hard job – built on truth and honesty in purpose and methods to use to achieve the desired ends. This takes grit, determination and an ability to listen and learn quickly. The values profile of people who seek power – in this case through political power – do not score well on these indicators.

Let’s take a look at Power-Seekers as measured by the most recent British Values Survey. Only a miniscule percentage of the population attempts to gain power through political activism, but this profile is a good proxy for those who desire that power in Westminster - and even more so in desiring Ministerial power in a Conservative government.

These people are more than twice as likely as the British population to want to have lots of money and things; that it is important to be rich. They are driven to acquire money and wealth and to show it off. Not really driven by public service, more about self-service.

Though they may make noises about free markets and self-determination, they don’t really want competition, they want control – being twice as likely as the population to want to control others, to have others do as they are told. Repressive policies, those that prevent others from exercising their own freedoms, are an obviously preferred route.

They are more likely than the rest of the population to think the use of the law to repress others is a reasonable action to take to enforce their policies and practices. They also have a barely concealed wish for confrontation. Civil disobedience by those they repress is an opportunity to impose their will on those who protest policies and practices. Violence is sometimes just a tool to get what you want.

They believe in gender hierarchies and strict separation of ‘men’s work’ and ‘women’s work’; though there are mitigating factors in terms of other group identifications like age and class - which will be displayed in power situations.

When they perceive they are at disadvantage in terms of categories like gender, age and class that can stymy their drive for power they are pragmatic. They will always display their ‘winners face’ - to appear higher up any hierarchy – in the hope that others believe it. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not, honesty is not always the best option. Getting what you want is always the best answer.

This short review of the top seven values aspects of Power-Seekers and the type of policies and practices that ‘come naturally’ to them is reinforced by noting the opposites of these orientations. Looking at the bottom right-hand corner of the map in the blue zone reveals that they are much less likely to value the measures of Honesty (ranked 117 out of 124 Attributes) and Reason (102 out of 124). In other words, the qualities essential to competent delivery of policy are not to the forefront of their values system.

Political commentators and analysts often refer to political parties and individuals as being 'Left wing' or 'Right wing' – though many of these academic specialists reject these labels as being alien to the general electorate – who, they say, perceive themselves only dimly through a political filter but, more clearly, through other lenses like class, age, gender or some form of identity that defines them to others. Research backs this to some extent and these factors shouldn’t be ruled out in political thinking and communicating.

BUT people do understand their own political values and easily define themselves as belonging to a wing of politics – and also not being part of any wing. The majority of the population claim no allegiance to either the left or the right. But about half of the population know where the stand in terms of 'Left wing' or 'Right wing'.

The destruction of current Conservative Party was a classic example of an organization building on its strengths until its strengths became a core of policy and practices that were so efficient that broad brand appeal and nuance gets lost. This is always the consequence of concentrating on strengths and eliminating anything that doesn’t reinforce that core (e.g. weaknesses) - in effect, hollowing things out. In situations like this, extreme or radical activities seem ‘normal’. What were formerly strengths become weaknesses.

Parties of governance in elective democracies need to have a broad appeal and the ability to create and react to nuances on core propositions in the development of improved institutions – the laws and regulatory rules - that provide the foundations of civil society. Without this broad appeal they lack legitimacy and consequently a lack of trust in being ‘competent to administer’ government policy for the good of all.

The following map shows the those who claim they are more strongly Right wing than the British population.

The area of the map in red and orange shows strong correlations between this group and Power-Seekers, specifically in their high espousal of the Material Wealth, Patriarchy and Catharsis Attributes.

Additional, even more extreme, forms of negative judgements of others are espoused – basically dividing society into ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ - with the strong having no responsibility to look out for the weak. In extreme circumstances – when aspirations fail, for instance – the use of violence can be used to ‘relieve the tension’. These are typical values orientations held by those who have been identified as Far Right. Academics studying political culture call this Social Dominance Orientation.

In the febrile post-2024 General Election atmosphere, within the butt of the Conservative Party in Parliament, the struggle for positioning by Power-Seekers is now evolving into a group of Conservative parliamentarians defining themselves as 'Centre right' – when in fact they are 'Far-Right' in terms of the electorate. It is notable that the anti-immigration-based Reform Party, whose members are largely skewed into the Right wing and have been branded Far right by political scientists, have now proclaimed themselves ‘Centre right’.

Unless and until the Conservative Party undergoes a period of introspection and recovery from their period of being dominated by the values of Power-Seekers, they will continue to be irrelevant to families and communities that need, and vote for, competence in their government.

Most will recognize many of these characteristics in Ministers of State, under various Prime Ministers over the last 40 years – and especially those since the 2016 European Referendum.

It is a truism that most people who achieve power seek power first. This analysis might help the ordinary citizen take precautions against the persuasions and use of language of those who wish to have political power. It should also help identify alternatives to the current crop of political operatives who drive to gain political power - to control others’ movements and thoughts while accumulating wealth for themselves.

Many in the electorate reject this orientation – the results of the Labour Party landslide support this – and look for alternatives to the values of the nihilistic pragmatism promulgated by the Power-Seekers.

Values orientations in keeping with the concept of public service are more at the core of British culture. Our research measures the strength of 124 different factors within the British values system and has found over two thirds of the population agreed with Attributes titled:

Given the overwhelming support these factors they could be called ‘Core British Values’. This is an illustration of how Conservative Ministers’ claim to represent ‘British Values’ was not well received within the electorate, and actually created dissonance within the minds of many.

Justice is one of 124 different factors measuring the British Values system. This map shows the values systems of the people who agreed with the following paired statements:

I think it is important that every person in the world be treated equally. I want justice for everybody, even people I don't know.

It is clear that this orientation stands in almost direct opposition the values held by Power-Seekers and those who hold strong Right-wing values. To illustrate these stark differences a quick comparison of the seven most important differentiators selected by Power-Seekers and the same differentiators among those who agree with the Justice statements.

These stark differences in values systems reveal deep insights into, first, why the Conservative Party vote dropped so dramatically and, second, why so many people did not vote at all – the turnout only 60% of the total electorate.

This type of analysis and understanding can provide the Labour Party with values driven guidelines, building on true British values and uniting a country starving for a more ‘civil’ civil society.

After years of the last government creating divisive policies and practices, instituting rules and regulations that set groups of citizens against each other, passing new laws that limit rights and freedoms taken for granted by previous generations, the new Labour government has come in with a mandate to reverse or mitigate much of this.

Kier Starmer has had to tread a fine line in not ‘over promising’ in raising expectations of quick changes to many ‘soft yet critical’ structural issues that need regulatory and attitudinal change - for instance a ‘hostile environment’ to immigration in the Home Office (including the Windrush reparations). This is only one example of “a change in values’ that face Labour and the Ministers who set the ‘tone within a culture’. Remember what was said above about ‘rotting from the head down’ ? The positive dynamic the new government Ministers need to understand is that ‘INSPIRATION starts from the head down’.

Building behaviour and communications on the firm, powerful base of the values that British people most espouse in themselves, and admire in others, is key to taking the electorate along on the journey of change. It is in this way leaders can ‘inspire others’ to support policies and practices that may not deliver immediate results but can lead to a more civic society.

Let’s examine the data more closely and see if these insights will help Labour weather the inevitable ‘gotcha’ headline media storms that will be generated by the British press and a hostile social media environment.

The rest of the six most important Attribute factors within the Justice values system are listed below. Each of them will provide a ‘communications hook’ or a ‘behavioural guide’.

When the Attributes Honest and Reason are added to these values orientations, we call this Ethical Universalism.

Poverty Aware and Caring are just two of the six factors within the Justice Attribute and are defined by people agreeing with the two paired statements:

I believe that the world's wealthier countries could and should do much more to help pull the world's poorest people out of poverty. I think it's time the global economy learned NOT to depend on taking from the poor to give to the rich.

It is very important to me to help people around me. I want to care for other people.

Each provides an insight into the British mind that would appear to be at odds with a range of policies and practices exhibited from successive Prime Ministers and of many Conservative Party members and voters. Together – which they are in the British mind – they provide an alternative to the last government’s wishes and practices. New Ministers responsible for Immigration and Health would do well to ground their messaging in Justice when speaking to their departments and to the media.

This really is not an option – the next most powerful nuancing factor within the Justice Attribute is Openness – defined by the following statements:

It is important for me to listen to people who are different than myself. Even if I disagree with the other person, I still want to understand them.

People are open to hearing from their leaders, even if they disagree with them – and expect reciprocation. Openness is one of the key foundations to our democratic system. The electorate may disagree with their leaders – but they want to know they are being listened to.

When leaders retreat inside the 'Westminster bubble' and frame their ‘listening’ practices along Party lines (often through a process of ‘whipping’), rather than reacting in terms of their personal values set - speaking not as an individual voting their conscience (theoretically what their constituents voted for) but as a member of an internal Party bloc - they are seen as denying real openness. This in turn leads to a poisonous relationship in which disbelief becomes ‘normalized’ and results in an openness to false narratives from those who are not leaders.

This failure of official communications and practices with the electorate is the breeding ground for propaganda and fake news – narratives that may or may not meet desirable standards of truth and honesty, but do provide a connection with ‘alternative facts’, in the words of a former American President’s spokesperson.

New social structures and practices would be welcome by Justice supporters if they enable the electorate to be heard not just on Election Day, but continually during electoral terms. The use of Citizen Councils to advise government on the current state of the public voice is just one change the new government can seriously think about in an effort to satisfy the openness needs of the majority of the British population.

This structure for the exchange of ideas is mirrored in the desire for more equality of access to the fruits of joint enterprise facilitated by our economic system – itself structured by government policies. This is measured by the Socialist Attribute and defined by the statements:

I believe there is too much power in the hands of too few people. I think there should be a more even distribution of wealth.

Justice encapsulates subtleties of meaning and expectation that leaders in the previous government are unlikely to have supported and that were another key to their electoral failure – and a guide for the incoming government and its representatives to think about the way they frame and perform their actions in the next five-year term. Devolution is one way of ‘walking the talk’, but more seemingly controversial measures, like proportional representation and taxation reform, are likely to find support in the electorate, and not as controversial among the electorate as it might be ‘inside the bubble’.

It should be clear that this Attribute is not just ‘socialist’ in the purely political sense. But it is a measure of believing that there is such as thing as ‘society’ (despite what a former Conservative Prime Minister is quoted as saying); and that it works best with more equality of opportunity to achieve wealth and esteem. It is not a ‘dog eat dog’ world – rather it is an ‘interdependent whole’ in which each human being is dependent on other human beings. The current inequalities are man-made and can be rectified by joint enterprise - between a range of people from the democratically elected Prime Minister to the continuous voice of the people - in new forms of listening, caring and behaving.

All the above can be acted upon by the new government and understood in terms of ‘political best practice’.

But the final two factors round out the need for personal responsibility – by leaders and the electorate – to create a better society in a changing world with basic changes to the environment that are likely to have an impact on future civil society.

The final two factors are measured by two Attributes: Nature and Positive Green.

I strongly believe that people should care for nature. Looking after the environment is important to me.

I believe that the way we live is having a huge negative impact on the environment. I think it's up to each and every one of us, starting with me, to change our behaviour in the interests of saving the environment.

Though pollsters and pundits have tracked the rise, fall and plateauing of ‘green issues’ the acceptance of personal responsibility for today’s actions in terms of future conditions is still a core value within the concept of Justice.

The statements are clear. Leaders need to be aware of the strength of feeling in the electorate. This can act as a block between the electorate and leadership - proposing policies that do not facilitate or reward citizens desires; or it can as act as a bridge to connection and support for not only this ‘issue’, but also provide a psychological framework of support for other policies and practices proposed and implemented by political leaders.

Breaking this psychological/values driven support structure through ‘broken promises’ leads to disillusionment with other promises. The new government has been driven by a narrative of caution and living within our means – which is reasonable but hardly inspirational. Inspiring others is one of the requirements of leadership. So, before making proposals or promises, real care needs to be taken.

One of the new government’s early promises, while in Opposition, was a significant investment in the Green Economy which was portrayed as the cornerstone of other proposed policies for growth and basic changes in society that reflected the Justice Attribute factors. When support for the policy was withdrawn and modified to reflect lower investment, over a longer period of time, there emerged a questioning of the whole platform of promises among different sections of the electorate who had pledged their support for the full platform. The seeds of discontent with other planks in the Party platform had been sown.

This is the nature of values systems – everything is connected - not isolated factors. Enlightened leaders have to be aware of the full scope of the mindsets within the electorate they appeal to for the support of their policies and practices during their term of office.

Leaders who depend on supporters that identify with Power-Seekers do not have a need for this.

But leaders who are elected by people who support the Justice Attribute – 70% of the population – need to adhere to a set of guidelines that incorporate these factors.

By living up to expectations, defined by two other Attributes, this makes governing much easier and attracts inspired and sustainably staunch support for multiple proposals, promises, policies and practices.

The first is Honest – which is illustrated on the Values map below.

Honest is defined by the statements:

I believe that honesty is the basis for trust. I would not lie; even to get myself out of trouble.

Being honest is firmly acknowledged as the basis for trust; something that has been sorely missing from the last several Conservative governments – with trust in politicians as a group at historic lows.

You can immediately see the HONEST Attribute correlates quite extensively with the JUSTICE Attribute and looks very different from the Power-Seekers profile.

In other words, the electorate is looking for leaders and Ministers to tell the truth even if it gets them in trouble. Most people don’t find the need to tell lies – politicians make a habit of it – even being trained in doing it (called media training). This has been so extensive that the electorate has come to expect it – and when it happens it just reinforces their opinion that politicians are not people to trusted.

The new government must make telling the truth a copper-bottomed virtue to change the perceptions of the electorate – no more ‘business as usual’.

The last Attribute the new government must acknowledge - and use as a basis to establish trust – is Reason, which is selected by 67% of the British population as a factor used in their regular life and expect their leaders to follow as well.

Reason is defined by these two statements:

I believe strongly in thinking things through when making a decision. I always try to identify the reasons for my actions.

It seems reasonable to me!

One of the downsides of the political culture of the last decade and a half is that government Ministers and Conservative spokespeople showed a steadily increasing orientation to ‘make up explanations’ to get through crisis situations – often caused being less than honest and open in reasoning about their own motivations, thinking and behaviours.

The extended negotiations and shifting support for various clauses in the legal framework of Britain’s exit from European Union is a perfect example of a lack of a ‘thinking things through’ and consistently ‘identifying the reasons for… actions’.

The new government has so far been notable for not falling into the trap of making up explanations; openly saying what they know and being open in what they don’t know yet - being clear, that at times, they may not be in a place where they can say they are clear.

Using their honesty enables them to create the mental space to understand their own thoughts and abilities to make reasoned and rational decisions. Being honest with the electorate also helps them re-establish trust.. People who ‘always have an answer to everything’ are not people others tend to trust. Always having an answer is taken as sign of the used car salesman, the spiv, the traditional politician.

Comparing these two critical Attributes essential for Justice shows how a return to human politics rather than party politics and the building up of trust between those who govern and those who elect can be achieved.

The following shows the top 8 (out of 124) correlations between the Honest and Reason espousers and how it differs from the Attributes of the Power-Seekers.

It is clear as a bell that the new government has inherited a culture that rewards those who seek power and wealth, conspicuous consumption and a willingness to coerce and intimidate others through the use of hierarchical social structures, and violence against others to enforce their will. Reason and Honesty are almost off the radar completely, while learning from mistakes is miniscule and grit and ‘sticking to the plan’ is less important than pandering to the latest poll numbers, resulting in no reasoned long-term planning.

It is also clear that the British public has long withdrawn its support for this orientation and is instead voting for a new government that has built upon a different set of values. This new option forms the foundation for ‘trust through telling the truth’ and having the grit and determination to ‘stick to the plan’ (not just as a slogan/soundbite) – at the same time as listening to the voice of the electorate and being willing to correct a course but still be focused on the long-term plan of creating a better society for future generations - not just quick wins to garner the votes of their supporters (Party over country).