Main Edition
US
FR
September 20, 2024 - 1:20pm
Tory leadership frontrunner Robert Jenrick has made an important intervention in the national conversation on English identity today. Writing in the Daily Mail, he argues that his party cannot return to power without the votes of England’s disenfranchised traditionalists, warning that mass immigration and “woke” culture have put English identity under threat. Central to this development, in his view, are the cultural attitudes and social policies of the “metropolitan establishment”.
Jenrick makes some reasonable if hardly novel points. England has become a more racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse country; compared to Scotland and Wales, it receives a disproportionately high number of migrants and has experienced greater forms of population change. The existing literature suggests that such diversification has the potential to undermine social solidarity — especially in more deprived neighbourhoods where perceptions of group-based competition for public resources can grow. There is no doubt that there has been radical progressive erasure of Anglo-Saxon history and identity in “decolonising” institutions, as well as a cultural discomfort over expressions of “Englishness” partly down to the hard-Right’s co-opting of the St. George’s Cross flag.
But Jenrick’s analysis of why English identity is under threat crucially exposes a blind spot on the British political Right, if not an intellectual deficit at the heart of modern Tory thinking. If there is a crisis of English national identity based on “culture, customs, and cohesion” in Jenrick’s words, that can’t be explained purely by admittedly unprecedented levels of immigration.
The “titular nation” — the single dominant ethnic group in a particular state — is in crisis in England. The traditional civic blocks which help to provide a sense of belonging and consolidate national unity have disintegrated in the modern era of rapid secularisation and materialistic individualism. People didn’t abandon the Church of England because it started associating itself with radical cultural liberalism and US-style identitarianism; really, the Church took that direction in a desperate attempt to remain relevant amid an era of declining Christian devotion.
England is an international hotspot of family breakdown, which is more prevalent within the indigenous mainstream than among minorities who originate from parts of the world such as the Indian subcontinent. That intergenerational transfer of spiritual “Englishness” — an unapologetic pride in England’s history, heritage, traditions, and culture — is limited due to high rates of age-based segregation. Loneliness among both the elderly and young in England is uncomfortably high — and that is not primarily the fault of socially conservative migrants or the foreign-born tenants in London-based social housing that Jenrick referred to in his intervention. Edmund Burke’s “little platoons” — church, family, and local community — are essential to a healthy and proud English nation, but received no mention.
There is the all-important question of what the reinvigoration of English identity would look like, beyond the immigration controls that Jenrick would like to introduce if he one day has the keys to 10 Downing Street. Conservatives who genuinely care about the preservation of English history, identity and culture must move beyond their comfort zone of speaking about the recent scale of inward migration and the “woke capture” of institutions. Then, they can look more closely at the spiritual and civic decline of the titular nation.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeJenrick is speaking to a very narrow strata of the public – Tory members. This ‘puff’ essential if he wants their support. Come 2029 he’ll have to have a much more sophisticated proposition.
Author makes an interesting contribution to the definition and believed crisis of confidence in national identity.
Anyone who travels much will get a sense of England/Britain/Home when they come back. Sometimes to see what others see and value you have to go elsewhere for a period.
My main instinct is we lack confidence in the essence of being British. It’s not about colour of skin or religion. It’s much more than that and it’s strong and vibrant.
We are much better at being English than defining it …. we see that as something other people do.
We are clearly lacking in confidence. But the article also makes a good point about the pillars of society being chipped away at – perhaps that is part of why we’re lacking confidence?
I think the single biggest factor in the disappearance of the social solidarity that we used to take for granted (apart from the destruction of the pub) is the over-centralisation of government and the resulting decline in community participation. We need more local powers in every area from transport to education and more local taxation to pay for them. When we’re able to directly interact with the decision makers who spend our money we’re much more likely to become civic-minded and participate – and they’re much less likely to waste it as they do now.
Let’s start by doing away with the Khan satrapy and returning his powers to the boroughs.
“the hard-Right’s co-opting of the St. George’s Cross flag”
Utter BS, the national flags and the union flags are symbols of patriotism. It is people like Rakib who cast patriots as far right who will end up driving some patriots to the far right and the surrender of our national symbols to the far right. We must avoid both of these happening.
Whether or not the flags are symbols of patriotism (which I’m not sure about; pedantically, I think they might be *signifiers* of patriotism), the photo illustrating this piece is clearly of football fans partying. While there’s some crossover between supporting the England team and being patriotic and also being “far right,” the presence of any of these by no means guarantees either of the others. The “hard right” (if it even properly exists) has yet to pry the St George Cross from the cold, dead hands of football fans, and no evidence is presented of this putative co-opting.
What I have observed is that when I’ve seen St George Crosses flown, they’re almost invariably in run down estates, and the flags are often tatty. Perhaps Dr Eshan has confused the urban working class with the far-right? I’m sure it’s an easy mistake to make.
“An easy mistake” for an arrogant middle-class liberal to make ..
There are quite a few people here in the States who would no more fly our own flag than they would that of the Confederacy. They also see the term “patriot” as synonymous with “racist.”
Personally, I feel that if someone tears down the statues of your nation’s forefathers, and flies the flags of your enemies, then you’re clearly under attack, if not defeated.
So fly the Union Jack, or St George’s or St Andrew’s cross, or the tricolour of the Republic, and fly it proudly.
They stand for far better things than the flags of Hamas, or Hezbollah.
Who are these mythical British political right?
The Tories are, at best, centre left; the Lib Dems are left; and Labour are far left. It’s hard to categorise Reform, as many of their economic policies could easily be defined as left of centre. Labelling anyone far right for questioning immigration policy is just a dog whistle.
The truth is, if you are a small-c conservative in Britain, you are disenfranchised.
The tories are centre left and the Labour are far left? What a clown you are, you knock your head before going to bed the other night?
If there is a crisis of English national identity based on “ div > p > a”>culture, customs, and cohesion” in Jenrick’s words, that can’t be explained purely by admittedly unprecedented levels of immigration.
Maybe not “purely” but let’s not act as if the mass importation of people with little regard for English identity if not outright hostility towards it is not a factor. And, pray tell, immigration should be discounted, what is the factor in t this?
Do better than lower church attendance. Fewer people going does not require foreign influence; it only takes the internal drumbeat of attacks on religion that are ongoing in the West. Meantime, “history, identity, and culture” are being torn down, literally in the toppling of statues, and rhetorically in attacks on Britain as some bastion of racism, as if that sentiment is unique to the Isles. It isn’t.
If i might continue the “internal drumbeat of attacks on religion”, your comment completely ignores the extent to which the Enlightenment was brought about by British thinkers and scientists. This, above all, has contributed to the downfall of religious zealotry and now even the milder forms exemplified by the CofE.
Do you regard the Enlightenment as a good or a bad thing, in terms of its achievements in advancing the health and general welfare of what arose: a democratically free West? You can’t have it both ways.
There’s an undercurrent in the article which suggests similar: that a lack of religious faith is behind the current malaise. No, no, and thrice NO!!
What is behind it is the aftermath of realising that humanity has been removed from the religious ‘centre of the universe’ with a god at the helm. Of course there will be a spiritual crisis after countless centuries of being indoctrinated in something which is now found to be false. What’s required to overcome this is a greater understanding of why early civilisations went down that path, and how it was adopted by authoritarians to seek power over their populations. There are more recently adopted means, of course. That’s what we now have to overcome.
Actually, I can have it both ways. It is possible to be of faith and to also appreciate what came from the Enlightenment. The part about religion in my comment was in response to the author seeing declining attendance in the church as equivalent to a loss of identity. One can be an atheist and maintain a strong national identity.
As ever, Ehsan is right. But the wokerati targeted by Jenrick are a problem in this regard all the same. Their views mean that they discourage expressions of Englishness so there are no positive signals that “we are English” for the nation to share. And who, other than the wokerati, who dominate all our cultural institutions, have the cultural reach to create such a nationwide expression? No one, almost by definition of “cultural institutions”.
I applaud ehsan’s focus on the issues he raises. But having an English nation means using the instititions of the state to encourage a sense of Englishness as being a good thing. That is important to English people, or some of us anyway, but also for the purpose of assimilating migrants who, otherwise, have no means of learning what Englishness is.
Perhaps the ‘Wokerati’ are the best emblem of Englishness.
An age thing perhaps?
Hear O Albion.
“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.”
Spot on!
Thanks for a well-reasoned article! Something I think you might have explored is the difference between immigrants who want to ‘be British’ and immigrants who want to ‘retain their culture’. The two are not, of course mutually exclusive. I also think you fail to distinguish between controlled immigration and illegal migration. In general, I think the ‘right wing’ (mostly what we used to call centrists) is concerned about illegal migration and the lack of long-term planning for controlled migration.
It took 400 years to get rid of the the Romans and 400 years to get rid of the French. Time is on the side of the Anglo Saxons.
The Germans still provide our monarchs and the Americans donate our deep state institutions.
The Americans are a problem, the late queen was irreproachable and embodied traditional Englishness.
Where I live there are national flags in every third garden and all public buildings have them. Football supporters also have them. Every public building has a flag and most have the union flag as well. What is so bad about being proud of the country you live in? Why do you have to feel guilty about your nation? What is so special about England that people are ashamed of their flag?
The way to fight this shame is for people to stand proud and be the first to fly the flag in the street – to lead instead of typing on a computer.
Guess from your name you are speaking from Wales. Hence ‘the Union flag as well ‘.
My ‘the Union flag as well’ comes only because the topic of the discussion seems to refer to the English flag and Englishness. For some reason, people condemn the English flag – I know why, because it was seized by extremists in the past. But so what – it is still the English flag.
About 48 years ago the extremist Meibion Glyndwr started burning down English-owned properties in Wales. Their main symbol was the Welsh flag. So what? Should Wales have banned their own flag?
Start with the svhool curriculum. English history and liyerature need to be the mainstay, not decolonised. Re-introduce civics and introduce life skills includng financial managent, relationships, and self regulation.
For years and years and years, indigenous English have been taught to be ashamed of their country.
Which indigenous English?
Interesting to see if anybody answers this. I suspect that people in the northern conurbations feel better about their flag than those in London. I believe that all bad ideas are coming from London nowadays, whereas Londo used to be the centre of good ideas.
Those that are descended from those English men who fought in wars to protect the English way of life and who loved their country.
Many people have no idea how little England had changed for hundreds of years prior to the mid twentieth century.
I disagree … not being surrounded by your own people that look like you, speaking the same language in the same accent with the same beliefs in your native country has a profound existential effect on humans. So, it is primarily down to third world immigration. Look at Poland or Ireland (perhaps 10 years ago as Ireland is changing rapidly) … much better and safer places to live than the binfire multicultural UK. Why?
An excellent piece. A lot of people who claim to be conservatives try to blame the country’s problems on immigrant populations who, for the most part, practice their religion, invest in the future of their children and maintain stable families. All things the indigenous stopped doing decades before the onset of mass migration. And then they complain about immigrants not wanting to assimilate. As if anyone can blame them. My family have been here since the Normans invaded and I certainly don’t want to assimilate.
I broadly agree. The profound effect immigration is having in England is at least partially due to the indifference of the English to their own culture and excessive openness to the cultures of others. Foreigners are finding a blank canvas and seek to fill it. This doesn’t justify the behaviour of some immigrant groups, but it does partly explain why they want to come to a country where society is a pushover. The English need to rediscover their own culture before expecting others to assimilate to it. At least Mr Jenrick is groping towards this truth, even if he has further to go.
(I preface this with a sigh deep from the soul and Psalm xxxix 1-4).
Surely England has three flags?
There’s the one the football supporters wear. Then there’s the blue and yellow two-striped one that flies from a variety of buildings and back gardens. Last but by no means least is the multi-striped one that flies from public buildings. This one also colours the logos of banks and stripes trains and police vehicles.
Englishness cannot be under threat if it is resurrected whenever useful. Useful to the Tory Party trying to save itself. Useful to bolster some foreign policy of a foreign state that our political elite must emulate in an English parliament, as when a foreign president makes a speech to the assembled Westminster MPs and refers to Churchill. We can puff ourselves up with England’s glories.
Useful to cast the present day activities of foreign military jets as a re-run of the Battle of Britain, and the Royal Navy meeting foreign submarines sailing in the Channel as a ghost of Drake meeting the Armada.
England is still useful when ‘our generosity’ to foreign refugees is required to justify failures or successes in immigration policy.
England is still useful as a form of protest as used by Reform UK. Along with the English version of Christianity, a religion that has been misapplied since it became associated with kings and states. England is still useful as a foil or target when used as something to protest about or advance some other cause.
England is still useful when called up by some media or political necromancer. England still kindles that fire in the heart, the sort of which the psalmist speaks.
Blue and yellow?
What would the author know about English identify
Modern English identity rests on radical curbs on immigration, much as modern Jewish identity is about defending Israel from her enemies. I believe English identity is a rightful concept of the Right just as British-ness has become a multicultural (and communitarian) construct of the Left.
It’s not really any of my business, but this sounds like a formula for doing nothing; kicking the can down the road in order to be sure that nothing changes.
I bet the author is very popular with your “leaders”.
Of course there’s always the alternative of actually addressing the concerns of the electorate, but that’s just too much like “good governance”, which seems to be very much out of favor among the over-class these days.
In his concluding remarks on the Brendan O’Neill Show I think Liam Halligan got it exactly right when he said of the Conservatives : ‘The party needs to appeal to those in the U K who are conservative with a small ‘c’ and that would include many from ethnic minorities who regard family as the major part of their life’s mission.
Rahib Ehsan is absolutely right and it’s very well said – touché! The piece does not dismiss or even counter Jenrick, it merely places the latter’s argument in its historical context. As a Yank suffering largely the same ills, we’d all be better off attending to Ehsan’s points instead of desperately deflecting them.
You guys, St George is racist now. He should’ve just let the dragon eat that lady.
Clearly, he was a dragonaphobe.
Hurrah! This seems to me exactly where Conservative thinking and potentially action needs to be focussed, and we have heard precious little about it from the leadership candidates – except, perhaps one, and that one isn’t Jenrick.
Ehsan is right and Englishness must be made to be a good thing, the England of the miners, the levellers, the diggers and John Ball’s peasant revolt. The first organised working-class not these toffs and elitists who latch onto Englishness.
The article makes accurate and salient academic points. Jenrick is right to focus on the loss of the ‘collective’, but as Ehsan says, this is due to much more than immigration.
The problem for Jenrick, who I suspect has understood these arguments, is that the country has changed. Arguments based on recapturing the locality of the parish church, or uncritically embracing English history will not win the Tories the next election.
For sure, there is an appetite for returning to what is proposed in the article, but in moderation. Burke argued famously that, “a state without the means of its change is without the means of its preservation”. England has changed. To preserve what we have now means being strategic instead of doggedly sticking by the decaying institutions of England-past.