Peter Allen

@peterallen.bsky.social

Professor of Politics & Co-Director of the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath, U.K. / British politics, representation, public sphere / author of How to Think About Politics (2025) and The Political Class (2018)

As an ex media report I can't help looking at the BBC Annual Report, it's a habit I cannot kick, I'm going to stick some things I've noticed in a thread. The tldr to my mind is if you're at the BBC and you're not panicking and trying new stuff and tuning out low level moans you're screwed. 🧵

🧵 Progressives need to think much more ambitiously about citizenship: it can't only be a debate about the "who" - the boundaries of citizenship. Our new @ippr.org report today makes the case for a new politics of "democratic citizenship": www.ippr.org/articles/the...

The democratic citizen: Renewing citizenship and the public domain | IPPR

Often, this descends into little more than an argument about eligibility for welfare benefits. This is a disaster for progressives, who find themselves fig

ippr.org

Look out for "Let's Save Water" - a major new campaign to get water demand to a level that future infrastructure can cope with. I'm one of the behavioural scientists involved, and am quoted in this article discussing the various forms of action people can take www.theguardian.com/environment/...

New campaign urges public to reduce water use as UK emerges from heatwave

Exclusive: £75m publicity drive will ask people to treat water as precious resource and cut daily use by 28 litres

theguardian.com

Remember that FOUR week turn around for a £40M call @ukri.org. Turns out it was actually a £60M call. How does this meet the Nolan Principles of Openess? UK invests £60m in two university-led AI research labs www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-p...

UK invests £60m in two university-led AI research labs - Research Professional News

Minister makes case for “forward-facing” academic research infrastructure

researchprofessionalnews.com

I have a provocatively titled piece in the latest issue of @renewaljournal.bsky.social, in which I propose that among the lessons of the “Epstein files” revelations is the value of a properly directly, healthy paranoia suited to an age of opaque networks, dark money, and unaccountable elites. (1/2)

Title: In defence of paranoia: rethinking
politics after the Epstein Files

Abstract: Th is article argues that a refl exive dismissal of ‘conspiracy’ has left political analysis blind to the routine operations of elite collusion, a failure exposed in stark terms by the Epstein case. It calls for a disciplined, evidence-led ‘paranoia’ capable of tracking power across the opaque ‘parapolitical’ networks that structure contemporary politics.Just as politics itself has a ‘Too Difficult’ box32 – long-term problems such as
climate change or media regulation that are quietly shelved because they are
complex, unpopular, or resistant to accessible solutions – so too, it seems, does
political studies. Structural questions about the influence of security services,
corporate lobbyists and/or organised crime on democratic outcomes are almost
entirely nudged to the margins, bracketed as conspiratorial and excluded from
peer-reviewed publication. Instead, answers are sought where data is more
accessible and ostensibly transparent – elections, legislatures, policy pro-
grammes – and approached in turn from a perspective buuilt upon broadly
pluralistic assumptions. This matters, because despite their relatively small
readerships, the outputs academia produce provides a key evidential basis that
structures wider political discourses.
When political scholarship declines to grapple with these darker dimensions
and subsequently fails those seeking reliable, authoritative sources, it cedes
fertile ground that can, in turn, be exploited by more malicious or misguided
actors. Movements like QAnon weave genuine historical conspiracies – such as
MK-ULTRA, Operation CHAOS, or Project Paperclip – into their narratives of
mass deception. In doing so they blur truth and fabrication to increase the per-
suasiveness of their fantastical claims.33 In short, when scholarship fails to offer
rigorous analyses that take account of the darker workings of power, demagogues
and opportunists readily fill the void.
Renewal@renewaljournal.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Subscribe to read: @daimoon.bsky.social on how the Epstein Files show the need for "political paranoia", and why social democrats should pay attention to "parapolitics" renewal.org.uk/articles/in-...

A write-up of the key findings and points made in this thread on my Substack: open.substack.com/pub/drmatthe... The way I see it, the argument that the public’s irrational impatience makes it ungovernable can’t be defended rigorously because it simply hasn’t been put to the test.

Testing the public's patience

Even if the electorate is short-termist, it's hard to argue irrational public impatience is to blame for the prime minister's woes

open.substack.com

Matthew Barnfield@mbarnfield.bsky.social · 3mo ago

Is impatience killing the government? Some data and some thoughts. @karlpike.bsky.social @philipjcowley.bsky.social and I found a year ago that people expected noticeable improvements in the NHS, schools, housing well within Labour's first parliament. www.politicshome.com/news/article... 1/7