I have already reflected on one long term change to the political scene resulting from Brexit this morning. That is the demise of the Tory Party as we knew it. It is now, instead, a party of English nationalism. This, though, is not the only long term repercussion of Brexit, which I now think will come to be seen as being as pivotal in the history of England (stated carefully) as our civil war was, and for the UK as 1940 might have been.
As I have argued in my previous blog, one consequence of Brexit is that the Tory Party is now a party of English nationalists. I believe that change is permanent. It is becoming in consequence neo-fascist. The presence of their neo-fascism will persist for the long term, I fear. That is why I hope business interests might promote a new, moderate, right of centre party, which we need to counter this threat. But under our system such a party might not flourish, and English nationalism is, anyway out of the bag.
The obvious has to be said, that this nationalism is the absolute antithesis of past English nationalism. Books could be written on why this is, but in a sentence that is because past English nationalism was always expansive, and this is isolationist.
Britain itself is a product of old-style English nationalism. Wales and Ireland were subjugated. Scotland was coerced and lured into Union (I summarise, grossly, but not wholly unfairly).
The Empire was built on the same ethos. And so too was the Commonwealth (which would now be wise to turn its back on us, but has not, as yet).
And now? Because the English elite and their British counterparts could never make the EU our own (by reason of being late to the show, and because Germany was just too big to treat as if our own) that elite, almost absent now of its British counterparts, has decided to walk away. Spurned for what they really are - which is aggressive, mindless bullies, bred by a culture that perpetuated generation-on-generation such culture through the private boarding school system - these people have now done what the bully will always do, which is form their own gang in the corner, from where they will throw insults and threats to all within earshot. Their threats do, of course, have a purpose. They wish to challenge the truth. They want to disrupt the existing order of society, which considers their behaviour unacceptable. And they are willing to do all this because they are indifferent to the consequence of their behaviour on the majority.
But the consequence is not just that English nationalism will now be a part of the UK political scene for a long time to come. It is much broader than that. Because what this isolationist form of nationalism does, inevitably, provoke is the end of the Union as we know it.
Whether or not Scotland has, at present, got a majority for independence is not known. That English nationalists will create one is, I think, certain.
And as Sean Danaher recently noted on Progressive Pulse, changes in the demography of Northern Ireland almost inevitably mean that it will within a decade or so have a Catholic majority who will seek a union with the Republic.
Whether or not Wales stays, who knows? It had little love of Tory politicians for many years, and I cannot see English nationalism having any appeal there. I suspect that in time it too will seek to break away.
And this is not an accident: I happen to think that this is what English nationalists want. The antipathy towards the other countries in the Union in the region in which I live appears to be significant: the number who have been to any of them is tiny. Ignorance feeds the hostility that is felt. Such people will all too easily be persuaded that these nations are a cost that the English could do without, in just the same way that many still believe a figure once written on the side of a bus. And that will be the end of this country as it has been for the last century, and in other forms for three centuries.
Maybe I should not mourn. And for the Scots, people of Nothern Ireland and Welsh I do not.
But for England? Whatever has become of England?
I do not for a minute think our history all proud and glorious: much if it was not. But I was brought up to at least think we did, to some degree, try fair play. It was the ethos inculcated in me: the narrative I learned. And I think many did try to live by it, even if they failed, quite often. In the post-war era that ethos did build a country that benefited many. And where many could hope that it might benefit them, soon. But now, the aim is to build a land of the few, for the few, at cost to the many, and to the exclusion of others. And that is something that will be very hard to avoid, whatever happens on Brexit now.
And that is some thing to regret.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I would prefer to call the Tory party proto-fascist rather than neo-fascist. Although the ideology and arguments of many on the Tory right tick all the boxes of Faschismus theory (e.g. Umberto Eco) the vital ingredient of a leader in quasi military uniform is still missing.
In your mind put Rees-Mogg beside Salvini and you know the difference.
Matt
I can assure you that every tactic the Tories have used to gain any traction with the electorate is straight out of the Fascist cook book.
Period.
The Tories are Neo-Fascist in that it is an old idea rehashed to look new and acceptable.
You are not really English. You are an anglophobe.
Far from it
I was brought up by a father with the paranoid desire to assimilate despite an Irish name, when that was a deeply difficult nothing to have
Anglophobia was as far from the narrative I was raised in as its was possible to be
And whilst it is true my reaction was never to think myself English – because that not my only inheritance or even passport – I have never hated the country that is my domicile
You are very wrong
To aspire to justice, fair play, the rule of law, compromise to accommdater the other: none of those is evidence of Anglophobia. If you think it is then you evidence the corruption of English nationalism
When you’re called an Anglophobe because you refuse to accept England’s worst traits and adhere to its worst project since colonialisation, it’s a sure sign your accuser believes in an unsavoury idea of England.
So many “traitor” calling “true believers” these days…I fear you’re right in what you wrote.
50 years ago I fell in love with a language, a sense of humour, a love for the exentric, a vibrant music scene, an open and tolerant culture, a political set up working to compromise rather than explode every second…Romantic maybe, but not completely, the country I moved to in my late twenties was really quite pleasant to live in, not perfect, but very easy to like and to call home, despite Thatcherism, and that was no joke.
As you come closer, you see the faults.
One which really struck me was the sentimental attachment to its colonial past among many, educated and less educated.
Coming from a culture whose colonial past had been almost obliterated by most of the political class and even the History books, almost erased from official discourse and collective memory, it was a shock. I suppose what it could be compared with most was the Napoleonic-tinted arrogance we learned to associate with being French in school. Political and ideological imperialism seemed acceptable there, while English cultural and economic imperialism was more acceptable here, it seemed.
Then there was the private school elitist brainwashing. I worked in one for three years, and eventually left because working there was like propping up a system I totally despised.
The Tory party is home to those boys I taught in the late eighties. Many were brainwashed, like their fathers and those before them. Full of a sense of entitlement. The gentlemen among them were not always the most successful, not ruthless enough.
So what is happening to England was bound to come. The necessary counter-balance of a functioning and pragmatic Labour Party has so far failed to control the darker side of a country always on the edge. And now the Tory party is toppling into fascism. This two party system is failing.
But fascism is potentially in every nation. What makes it grow and take hold is a combination of factors. England seems to have them now. The toxic mix of corrupt media, politicians, and blindfolded, brainwashed, or opportunistic enablers and followers.
Wales, where I live now, may well decide at some point that no one in Westminster can be trusted to respect its choices for the nation it is trying to be. Proud of its NHS, its inclusive education, its vibrant cultural life, its environment. But Wales also has its faults, watchful is what we always
need to be, everywhere we live.
Thanks
It is part of England’s problem that it tends to consider itself above critical analysis even when a self imposed crisis like Brexit shows that analysis to be pretty necessary. Fintan O’Toole’s critical but sympathetic writing on Brexit has produced the same paranoid accusations of anglophobia while Scotland of course is well used to having its aspirations dismissed as anglophobia – as if we’d waste our time. It’s ‘all about me’ – narcissistic nonsense, but it’s probably confined only to that certain type of English person known and unloved around the world.
I’m English and I agree with every word Richard has said.
This is not about anti-anything. It’s about being self aware and reflective. And not letting others manipulate that which troubles us.
It’s not about apportioning blame either. It’s about thinking and learning and making things better.
Nigel Duffy says:
“You are not really English. You are an anglophobe.”
Anglophobia seems to be a very English (perhaps British) trait …..Brexit is a manifestation of a self-loathing that is entirely consistent with the pathology which leads to reckless self-harm. The parallels with individuals who engage in self-harming behaviour are quite striking. ! I think I’m right in saying that applies to one in five of our school-age children, and often continues into adulthood.
A bit of collective, national self-awareness wouldn’t come amiss. The UK population is very uncomfortable with itself.
… whilst your analysis is historically accurate it fails to acknowledge the role played by New Labour in promulgating Thatches neoliberal revolution which influenced the development of the nascent EEC and the Maastricht Treaty thus ensuring that De Gaul’s fears over the role of the UK and it’s former colonies, particularly the US, were proven presciently correct… without reform the systemic faults with the Euro as a currency will undoubtedly be the undoing of the EU…
I think I covered the point in the linked piece
As she said herself, Blair was Thatcher’s “greatest achievement.”
In 2017 there were 7000 more Protestants than Catholics in NI. The birth and death rates are about equal at 2000 per month. The oldest cohort is about 2/3 Protestant and 1/3 Catholic whereas births are around 51% catholic and 33% protestant (there are a lot more people of no religion or other). Running the numbers it is more than likely than not there is already a Catholic majority in NI.
It will take a decade or so however before there are more Catholic registered voters.
There is also an increasing number of non-aligned people.
The choice will come down to practical considerations as to weather NI is better as part of the UK or in a UI.
To my mind England had deteriorated very dramatically over the last decade, but particularly in the past few years. I think your analysis is correct sadly.
Ireland has done the opposite. Both socially and economically it has improved dramatically. Whereas I am no fan of the domestic policies of the current Fine Gael government (too Neoloberal) their performance re Brexit has been strategic, professional, coherent effective and unifying. The same can not be said of HMG indeed antonyms come to mind.
I do think there will be a United Ireland within a decade – it may be even sooner particularly with a no-deal Brexit.
One other aspect I discussed in my post you referenced above is that within a few years also, the number of UK citizens living in Ireland will likely be greater than visa versa.
I agree with all that Sean
Rumor has it that we will be welcoming the current PM to Ireland where she intends to retire https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8787591/theresa-may-holiday-home-ireland/ !
I’d go west
Sean Danaher says:
“Rumor has it that we will be welcoming the current PM to Ireland where she intends to retire ”
That would be entirely consistent with a certain mindset. The fuckit-and-run mindset. 🙁
I wonder what the proportion of people in NI is who are directly dependant on the State for the majority of their income.
I suspect it’s more than the proportion of Catholics will ever be.
So can statism be defined as the religion of the North?
I possums you know how arrogant and deeply antagonistic you sound?
“I possums you know how arrogant and deeply antagonistic you sound?”
Don’t you just love/hate these clever spellcheck devices ? 🙂
Anthony Fisher says:
“I wonder what the proportion of people in NI is who are directly dependant on the State for the majority of their income.”
….and you think you are not dependant on the state for your income perhaps….? You believe the private sector operates in a vacuum….?
Mostly yes, but possibly no.
I agree that it won’t be at all as simple as “Catholic majority = (Irish) nationalist majority”, but I wouldn’t underestimate “my” (Ulster Protestant) people’s capacity for not just resisting rational arguments but actively taking up arms against them. I fear that, if a border plebiscite within the kind of timeframe you envisage were to yield a democratic majority for a united Ireland, there would be enough Prods in positions of power, and stroppy enough, to unilaterally declare an Ulster Boerestaat which would be oppressive both within its own borders, undertake violent activity towards and in the Republic, and most severely of all against an England that treated even such a perverse concept of Loyalism with such contempt through Brexit and its likely aftermath. The historical evidence almost throughout the Troubles is that loyalist violence has been far less targeted, either psychologically or demographically, than republican violence. Imagine what a bunch of angry Prods with an axe to grind against the English could do. I really think that this is a genuine danger – far from a racing certainty, but far enough also from zero probability, and likely to cause enough damage to (as Marty Feldman called it) the Untied Kingdom, that it deserves a place in long-term risk analysis… and yet I’ve never yet seen a single English person register it as an even hypothetical possibility.
Having said that, if someone like me – brought up in east Belfast as a palpable though not a fervent (cultural) unionist, whose political and psychological identity was always British, who voted with my arse and spent my entire adult life living in England – can be so alienated by the political and psychological character of Brexit England that I’ve taken the Irish passport I acquired in ’09 and fled to live in Germany, then it may be possible that enough of my NI compatriots will judge rationally in such a notional future plebiscite.
The proponents of minority violence cannot be allowed to rule in Northern Ireland or the rest of the U.K. (I will not use the term Great Britain, because very obviously it is not)
Its clear that a privileged elite group in the ERG has taken control of the Conservative party, with dire consequences for the United Kingdom. This right wing insurgency has become even more damaging because it extends deep into the BBC at a powerful editorial level. An accident of timing allowed them to gain a hold on power, because their rise coincided with a popular working class revolt against immigration. Perversely this has allowed a wealthy elitist movement, to assume the clothes of a working class national revolt. They keep repeating the mantra that they represent the 17.4 million, which glosses over the fact that no majority ever elected these political opportunists to power. Indeed after the Brexit vote, support for UKIP collapsed entireley, and there is no evidence whatsoever that a majority of British, or even a majority of Conservative voters (in contrast to active party members), would support their extreme right wing ideology.
Although this may seem like our darkest hour, it’s far too soon to be calling time on the United Kingdom, or on inclusive British values that used to characterise and unite our separate nations. On the 23rd March I joined a Peoples March in London which drew over a million citizens from all over the UK, as far away as the Orkneys, the Welsh Valleys, and Northern Ireland. By contrast the Brexit march organised by Farage drew a few hundred to its launch and only a few thousand in London on Brexit day. This is not the time to give up on a United Kingdom, or on positive support for the values of peace and cooperation that the EU represents. Now IS the time to start the fight back, and the first key battle will be making any final Brexit deal subject to a Peoples Vote. The last vestige of legitimacy that these charlatans can claim is their 17.4 million “votes” achieved through deception three years ago. The sooner this whole tower of myth built on Brexit lies is demolished, the sooner we can get back to rebuilding a united Britain, and repairing our relationship with the EU, whatever shape our new relationship finally takes.
Robert, I see parallels with the USA. A reactionary, neo-liberal group has managed to distract the attention of the people (who have been ripped off by the present system) and direct it away from the true causes to scapegoats such as immigrants, Greens, feminists, left wing and reform movements and LBGT people.
One of the reasons they can do this is that most of the media is controlled by that group.
” An accident of timing allowed them to gain a hold on power, because their rise coincided with a popular working class revolt against immigration.”
I’d be inclined to consider the revolt against immigration as very carefully engineered rather than happenstance. Without it, their hold on power wouldn’t have materialised.
There is no doubt that leave.EU, the government and the BBC all inflamed anti-immigrant feeling, sometimes inadvertently, but often deliberately. However, the wave of EU migration into the UK which followed the 2008 financial crisis, was real, and was badly managed by the government, creating genuine pressures on wage competition, housing, and public services in some parts of the country. Worse still, many UK employers (including a food manufacturer I worked for in South Wales) were very actively using agencies to direcly recruit labour from Eastern Europe, as a way to keep their labour costs down – not a story that got presented on the BBC news!
Of course, Brexit was not the right answer to concerns about immigration, but neither should we ignore them as simply an invention of the right. In many ways the Brexit leaders capitalised on genuine discontent within communities which mainstream politicians were either ignoring, or just dismissing as racism.
Without a doubt Leave took advantage of xenophobic sentiments and real grievances against foreign workers suppressing wages. But the British government choose not to implement policies that could have alleviated the downward pressure on wages, like a moratorium on free movement from new EU members, which the EU explicitly allows and were used by other EU members. It was a deliberate policy to allow this mass immigration to happen, because wage suppression was the goal. It was then blamed on inflexible EU regulations when it became politically convenient to do so.
Robert Philip Bruce says:
“Although this may seem like our darkest hour, it’s far too soon to be calling time on the United Kingdom,”
Hmmmm….as far as the UK is concerned I think the damage was done long ago. The kingdom is not united and like Humpty Dumpty, I don’t think it will go back together again; not and live comfortably.
The BBC bears some responsibility for the situation you describe. Its network is utterly anglocentric on the assumption that ‘nobody’ will want to watch stuff from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, while we will be happy with a diet of programmes made in England for England with our licence fees. The absence of any real exchange between the 4 countries contributes to the ignorance in England of its neighbours which feeds prejudice. Far from holding the UK together, which is one of its missions, it reflects everything that is wrong with the UK.
Not even Anglo-centric I would say, but South-East-centric with the odd smattering of news from Birmingham and the Manchester-Leeds belt. I don’t know how people in the South West feel, but certainly those of us living north of Manchester often feel as though we don’t exist as far as the BBC are concerned.
Newcastle — where’s that? Scotland?
Someone told me Birmingham was where the moth started recently
I got out a map and showed them they lived north of Brum
The were horrified
But unrepentant
That’s outrageous on both counts. Birmingham is very much not the north, unless “the north” actually now means “not the south east”.
Amusingly, my partner complained that she found Sheffield far too southern when we lived down there for a year, so it’s all a matter of perspective I guess.
I have noticed a (subtle) difference in culture between the near north and the far north – a bit of a sidetrack from this thread proper but an interesting micro topic if you ever get time (I know you’re very busy)…
Johan G says:
“Newcastle – where’s that? Scotland?”
Well……. yes.
The line of Hadrian’s Wall runs along the west road. It amuses me greatly when Brit-nats talk wistfully of reinstating Hadrian’s Wall. They really don’t know where it is do they ? They think it is in Scotland somewhere.
The fastest route from Wallsend to Berwick (according to my search) is 65.3 miles and takes 1hour 18 mins by car on the A1. This puts the Anglo Scottish border about as far north of the wall as it is long.
So true
Poor Northumberland – that most beautiful and forgotten county by most in England
Good article: we have been here before. The 100 years war in France was a bit of English adventurism which devastated France but allowed English kings to keep a lid on the troublesom nobility. By the 15th cent’ the France had got organised and turfed the English out which led to the Wars of the Roses (well if you can’t fight the French – why not each other?). The battle of Towton by the way was the bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil (circa 30k dead – perhas 5% of the adult male population) The 17th cent to mid-20th provided a global outlet forEnglish aggression. Now there is no global outlet. It will be interesting to see how things pan out – will we see England tearing itself to pieces a la the Wars of the Roses. I hope not – but looking at the dolts in the HoC I am not hopeful. Soldiers shooting at an image of Mr Corbyn does not bode well for how things may develop. Scotland will leave the Union, and NI will end up where it should have been in 1924 – part of Ireland. Most of my non-English friends look on with horror at the political events in the UK – & ask me for explanations. I have none
@ Mike Parr
Never forget that, in proportionate terms, more people, military and civilian, died in the English Civil War – which, alas, spilled over into Scotland and Ireland – than were UK victims of WW2, and possibly of both World Wars.
The UK is still suffering the aftershocks of the Civil War – the adulation of “King Billy” and the “Glorious Revolution” being two examples.
I fear BREXIT is proving to be a 21st century, if not replay or re-enactment of the Civil War, then certainly its divisive and destructive and almost certainly equally long-lasting in its repercussions, equivalent.
I agree Andrew
Historians put the start of the conflict with the Bishops wars here in Scotland, so rather than the ECW spilling into Scotland, it started here and Scots covenanting armies took part in England as well.
Mike Parr says:
“The battle of Towton by the way was the bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil ”
And the toffs took to their horses and ran away to the nearest friendly castle. Disgusting, and cowardly as ever.
Sadly, Richard, you are exactly correct. As a Scot, I grieve for what is happening – even if some of its worst features will hasten my country’s release from a Union which has, for most on my life, been one of the main causes of our own problems. The isolationism of the ‘New Order’ of Leaver Conservatism is indeed the woeful sea-change which is now driving the Right. Myths of a society’s central character are much honoured in the breech – but the power of their wider acceptance often provides a useful hypocrisy which means that, in the end – when political push comes to shove – they have to be honoured, even if through gritted teeth and with shabby compromises. In the US, their founding myths, so long ignored in relation to black rights, drove and still drives movements to improvement and equality. In England, the myths of benign rule, of the mother of parliaments, of the obligations of empire and commonwealth were always somewhat bogus – but they were useful, even, occasionally moral.
Now, what do we have? A set of utterly false and non-useful myths of plucky adversarial victimhood against England’s neighbours at best, and against all outsiders at worst. As a historian and a teaching one, I feel my profession’s failure keenly. How did this poisonous melange of half-truths and self-serving lies come to overwhelm all that was worthwhile and useful in the old mythology of the Britain in which I grew up? (A Britain many of whose best features, ironically, I find only to be protected and preserved among the works and many of the ideals of SNP Scotland.) Churchill deserves some of the blame for executing his proudly proclaimed intention of controlling the history of WW2 for he was going to write it. But the failure has been much much wider – and runs trickling out from inadequate university courses to complacent school ones and an absence of sufficient academic pressure on the publishers of history – print and mass media ones – to tell the whole story and not just the Churchillian myth. I must stop. To borrow from R P Lister’s poem, “Before The Ball” – “It was too big a task for seven days” – let alone a blog comment!
You are also so right about the Consrvative’s deafness to industry and business, which has been one of the most astonishing features of the whole Brexit shambles – that is from June 2016 onwards. I remember Mike Russell telling me in early 2017 that city and industry leaders were starting to speak to him – in shock as they began to realise that the Conservatives were no longer ‘hearing’ what they had to say.
On Brexit, we are now left to hope that Corbyn will not fumble – or, worse still, prove equally deaf to ordinary folk and the need for them to have the final say.
Nigel
I do wonder if I might move north of the border – the temptation to do so is obvious, and I hope I might be made welcome if I did
We’ll see
Richard
Kettles on.
🙂
You’ll definitely be welcome up here. One of the things I love about being Scottish is our hospitality. If you move up here to live, you become an honorary Scot, welcomed with open arms.
Thank you
*polishes kettle and starts to bake cake…
Welcome indeed, Richard. The Scottish government could certainly do with swapping Andrew Wilson for you! If you do really contemplate taking the road north – try heading for the Borders. We have too many Tories but have much to compensate for that – and even some of them are a-changing!
I could not possibly comment…….
â˜If you do decide to join us up the road, please do it BEFORE the proverbial hits the fan!
OK…..
Remember to pack your thermals!
The English have always considered the Union Flag and St. George’s Cross as the flags of England. The terms UK, Great Britain and England all mean England. They have always treated the Irish, Scots and Welsh as less than themselves. They have always been aggressive and superior.
The Union is finished and I can only say “Thank Goodness”. Your article is accurate but I would argue that it has always been so and unfortunately they enjoy the isolationism.
Julia
I can only speak for Northern Ireland, but the superiority of the English grates even with Unionists. When it comes to sport (Rugby, football) many Unionists are to put it kindly, ambivalent about supporting England.
Independence is an option for Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. But it doesn’t solve the issue of a nationalistic England.
In that scenario, the current RUK would be a North Atlantic version of Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania
On the last, you may be right
On the rest, I am sure you are
A thought provoking piece Richard.
I think an important part of the way we are socialised in the British Class system, but which is little talked about, it the Psychology of “specialness.”
We all are fully aware of the basic boundaries of existence, from birth to death, in which we are no different from anyone else; however, class systems provide the opportunity to divide up specialness into many layers from abject poverty accompanied by very little specialness, to unbelievable wealth and privilege accompanied by a confident belief in personal specialness. Some of the characteristics of the two (simplified categories) were described by Herman Witkin as far back as 1949 suggested two basic modes where our cognitive style operates, “field independence” and “field dependence.” Our system encourages personal development, from a very young age, in very different ways which are largely dependent on your life chances and resources. In a privileged setting characteristics such as compulsion to constantly achieve, an exaggerated belief in one’s own worth, narcissism and expansive grandiose trends are encouraged. In field dependence you will find a life program reinforcing that you should look to others for guidance, a tendency towards internal feelings of inferiority, a supplicant pose to your betters, and a strong sense that if you work hard you will be rewarded and protected, fight against it and you will suffer so keep your opinions to yourself. The system works well in the most part until the basic building blocks are removed.
Getting to my point is a little difficult because this is an expansive field and difficult to condense.
As the State has withdrawn the safety nets that we have become accustomed to since the post war years, that sense of specialness is condensing in a way I’ve not witnessed in my lifetime, the Nationalism you speak of is that specialness being reduced down and surfacing as “we the English, we the Scots or we the Europeans” are special in ways the others are not.
Chaos for the majority and security for the privileged few has become normalised. This is where, with a population of field dependent people, we find those at the top of the food chain can emerge as the people we need to follow, they will rescue us from the chaos and bring order to the confusion. Remember the words of Margaret Thatcher
‘Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope’ ‘…..and to all the British people–howsoever they voted–may I say this. Now that the Election is over, may we get together and strive to serve and strengthen the country of which we’re so proud to be a part. ….And finally, one last thing: in the words of Airey Neave whom we had hoped to bring here with us, ‘There is now work to be done’.
I submit that they have been working hard and in the shadows to create the conditions we are now facing, the downgrading of the our democracy with disruption, chaos and confusion, scarce resources and fewer and fewer protections, division within Europe, the UK and within the each of us as individuals. Insecurity and fear are inherent in the new vision being carefully but deliberately rolled out. The message is;- “we are special, but more and more of you are not.”
Thanks
Well put
And I agree with the conclusion
The Conservative Party, as distinct from the majority of it’s current MPs, numbering at most 120,000 members has already been thoroughly infiltrated by the reactionary right, many of whom are former UKIP supporters. They are far more effective than Momentum in purging the ‘one-nationers’ as Grieve, Boles, Soubry and several others can testify. Your question as to what will happen to the centrists is intriguing. I suspect many will kowtow to their new masters in order to keep their seats – as for the rest, they may find a temporary home with Chukka and co but they will probably end up with the Liberals who still have a national organisation.
“The Strange Death of Tory England” – might be the title of your next book. The original, “…of Liberal England” by George Dangerfield published in 1935 has been excoriated and praised by left, right and centre in equal measure and dismissed as wrong in many of its conclusions and suffering from some unacceptable views. But most people seem to admire its written style and admit to it being highly influential.
Whether or not there are any parallels between the demise of the Liberals and possible demise of the Tories, one thing is certain, the Tories are entirely the authors of their own destruction. Good though it would be to see them go, I fear it will only mask the toxic influence you allude to of public schools and certain universities, a malign influence which is centuries old and is likely to continue as they seem to go from strength to strength turning out well-polished graduates ready to slip into the network of privilege and entitlement and make their way effortlessly to the top of professions, business and politics.
A really good piece by yourself Richard.
All I would say is that the Union and the health of British politics has become collateral of the continuous anti-state (or the retrenchment state) policies of the Tory party over the years and even of New Labour’s championing of these ideas when they were in power.
I always wondered why the Tories would bang on about ‘Great Britain’ and wave the flag whilst undermining the very same thing they said they stood for.
The Tories in particular never really came to terms with what the State should be once it had given away its powers or subjugated it because they did not realise that the State had derived its greatness from those attributes that the Tories abhorred (as well as those we were right to question).
I would say that modern Tories have a love/hate relationship with the idea of the ‘the State’. It just so happens that in our time, hate has actually come out on top. And these are the consequences.
The Neo-liberal experiment with British democracy is now over I think. And now we will have to get ready to sweep up the mess.
The Tories?
I for one will not mourn their passing.
I can think of nothing that they have done for me or my family. Right from when my daily bottle of milk disappeared at school to the present day when I have actually lost money whilst at work, they have cast a shadow over me and my loved one’s lives (53 years of it).
I have seen them destroy communities and individuals. The destroy things and then set about the debris like rabid pigs rooting for truffles.
They are inhuman and anti-social and their callousness and indifference has at times bred a hatred in me (born of fear for what they might want to do next) that has made me ashamed of myself and doubt my sanity.
Shame on them. And good riddance (fingers crossed).
Well, your feelings echo all the way here, thank you.
That goes for me too and my family.
In spite of the risk of an accusation of pointless pedantry, I may wish to nit-pick over the history. Scotland coerced? Aside from the failed bludgeoning violence of the Plantagenet’s, while I would not quibble excessively about the use of the word “coerce”, notably well-timed in its use in the late 17th century; the first coherent intellectual argument for the Union was written by the Paris-based Scots philosopher and historian John Mair (1467-1550) ‘Britanniae Majoris Historia’. The Scots (at least the few hundred who ‘mattered’) largely coerced themselves.
On Fascism in the Conservative Party, there is a tale to tell; no apologist for the Conservative Party has ever satisfactorily explained (or tried to explain away) Sir Joseph Ball (1885-1961); first Director of Research for the Conservative Party, senior MI5 operator, probable author of the the Zinoviev Letter, phone-tapper (hacker) of Winston Churchill in the 1930s, probably operated an independent foreign policy for Chamberlain …. …. I could go on; but he burned most of his correspondence, so facts are thin on the ground. Astonishngly, he is rarely the focus of serious, systematic historical attention. He is a Black Hole in history, but we can only see the debris swirling around nothing….
Nobody has ever explained the Scots Conservative, William Forbes-Sempill (1893-1965) either …… ……
I think the debt crisis of 1707 was used to coerce….discuss
There was no debt. Scotland was broke, not bust. Personal capital was effectively destroyedin Scotland through investment in the Darien Scheme (including some ‘coercion’ by Westminster through the Navigation Acts, antipathy from the East India Company, and England’s request of help from Spain (!), of all English ‘allies’, to crush the venture when it landed – the new Union British state took Gibraltar from Spain less than 20 years later(!)). There were seven years of harvest failures in Scotland, causing famine in some areas, in the late 17th century. The population fell sharply. Scotland was seriously short of credit and capital. Scotland was broke: but it is important to notice that Scotland had no significant National Debt.
The irony within the Treaty of Union (1707) is the provision for the ‘Equivalent’; a sum of money calculated by the Scots mathematician David Gregory, to establish the appropriate sum of money (hard cash) to be paid by England to compensate the Scots – principally for taking a share of England’s national debt. They actually put the specie in a big chest, and carried it from London up to Edinburgh. Part of the Equivalent became the seed capital that eventually worked its way into the founding of the Royal Bank of Scotland (I think they may still have the chest. The money is gone (!)). Now that is irony.
I stand corrected!
@ PSR
While I share ALL your sentiments, I regret that any news of the death of the Consrvative Party is definitely premature.
Right-wing rhetoric still resonates ‘positively’ with a significant % of voters … enough to keep the Tories alive even if on a life-support machine. And the growing European popularist right is helping to re-affirm its message to those who want to hear.
People vote Conservative, even against their own interest, for many well documented reasons, viz.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/jun/05/why-working-class-people-vote-conservative
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/7xpzee/a-spotters-guide-to-every-type-of-tory-voter
And in times of uncertainty + complexity the right markets cleverly worded, simplistic messages of comfort to the fearful (wealthy) and insecure (precariat). But of course, as history has proven, it’s all smoke and mirrors.
Hopefully the game changer will be the challenge of the environment to which neo-liberalism has no logical answer.
Incidentally I did like AOC’s comment quoted in today’s Guardian: “The reason Republicans hate me so much is because I confront them directly on their lack of moral grounding on so many issues,” she said between sips of wine. “Not just that, but the reason they’re so upset and they act like that girl in The Exorcist that’s vomiting pea soup, that’s like them and negativity. The reason that they do that is because they need to fiercely protect a paradigm and way of thinking that says short-term gains are more important, no matter how marginal, than any long-term loss and any long-term cost,” she said.
QED!
You are right John D about Tory values (a somewhat self contradictory concept!! ) enduring but I think that it maybe the Party that is going to disintegrate and that WOULD be music to my ears.
Thank you Richard. Thoughtful, touching and wise. You are by no means an Anglophobe. The fact that you are able to self-reflect as an Englishman is no doubt due to the Irish in you. (I’m kidding but not really.) By and large, the English don’t really do self-reflection. Why would you want to self-reflect when it’s all going swimmingly for you? ïŠ
No, not self-reflection, but a lot of manipulation and bullying, and elitism as you say. They have never really taken Europe seriously. They only know supremacy, centralism and top-dogism etc.
You ARE on the money here. I resonated with every word of it. Where I am a tad disappointed is in the absence of any contrast by you of the difference between English nationalism of the ‘isolationist’ kind and Scottish Nationalism of the Civic and expansive kind . Actually, to be accurate, the Scots are Nationals, not Nationalists. I used to call it a fine distinction but it’s actually a major distinction. Nationals emphasise the nation and its diverse strengths. Unlike England, Scotland doesn’t think it’s better than any other nation, but that it has a right to feel as good as any other nation. Everybody has a part of the wisdom and a part to play in the whole. It’s egalitarian.
By contrast, English Nationalists emphasise ethnic characteristics of the individual within the nation such as provenance, class, and pomp. (My God, the pomp is highly disturbing among Tories. Mainstream media of the tabloid variety are just the pits in this matter, keeping it ticking over daily — if it’s not war, remembrance of war or re-remembrance of war, beginnings of war, middles of war, endings of war. Poppies, etc. it Royal babies, Royal weddings- Royal anything that makes the UK look important and superior in the eyes of the world. Except the rest of the world are watching the deep sickness in our nation. (Do we ever need new myths for young men other than bloody war and Royalty!!)
But they cant help themselves.
And yes, before anyone objects, no doubt there are some tribalists left in Scotland but they are not the majority of Scottish Nationals.
As I have said before, there is a big difference between the kind of ethnic exceptionalism and born-into superiority, leading to xenophobia and echoing the Nazis of the kind that we can see rising daily in England and which breeds division, and the civic national culture of Scotland which welcomes diversity and plurality. What we should support for the health of the future population is surely interdependence amongst nations, mutual respect, and “I —thou” mentality and not the kind of fear-filled exclusivity that the Brexiters have nurtured and manipulated to death. I for one, am fed up trying to be rational and polite. I want to scream and swear at Brexiters for their insular stupidity and sheer bloody inbred arrogance. God help us in a no deal Brexit. Amen from me.
Thanks Grace
And I accept your criticism
But the whole thing was written in a rush before I started examining today
It’s an even earlier start tomorrow
But that’s it for the term…..
Except students want me to go in next week
Maybe……
Go on in, Richard. If they want to see you, you must be doing something right.
The nations prosperity is really best served with a minimum of interference by politicians of any persuasion. Very few politicians have successfully served in industry.
How wrong can you be?
What the heck has industry alone to do with it
Try running an A&E
Or a school
Or even a services company
All count
Have to agree with the first post from Matt, what we seeing is protofascist, not a fully formed neo fascism. That is based on observations of Trumpism here from California. Actual fascism emerged independently of the traditional conservative parties. The Trumpistas and Brexeters are still bound within the traditional parties and must still cooperate with the traditional politicians and institutions. That imposes real constraints. Only when they split and form their own party, or expell the traditional politicians can we speak of the emergence of real neo fascism.
Playing off an old McCarthyite expression, what we have under present conditions is “premature profascism”. It’s a blessing in disguise that they have shown their hand ahead of time, recall Trumps ex lawyer Cohen testifying that Trump did not plan or expect to win the nomination, much less the presidency. Brexit vote falls into the same bucket. So they had to act prematurely. They have exposed their positions to attack, and so long as we don’t overreact, we can defeat them.
Much of the world can do very well with less England.
We will have to wait a few years for a truly historical perspective on both the cause and effect of Brexit, but I think it is interesting how often proponents and opponents reach for their own historical truisms. It’s not uncommon for some to reach back to events in 1945, 1918, 1701 or even 1688 as the underlying basis for their actions today. How prescient of Sir Humphrey Appleby to remind Jim Hacker that the only reason Britain first went into the EEC was to make a pig’s breakfast of the whole thing, and that British policy towards Europe had hardly changed in over 500 years. Certainly British foreign policy until its admission to Europe was one of playing Germany [Prussia, Austro-Hungary] off against France, and using the various other minor powers in its machinations towards the same end. It was, essentially, a ‘negativist’ approach. The spectacular failures in Kosovo and elsewhere notwithstanding, the EU likes to trumpet that it has maintained the peace in Europe since 1945. Whether true or not, it is a ‘positive’ raison d’etre that consistently trumped its British antithesis. May’s amateurish attempts to split off the smaller countries of the EU to somehow favour Britain against that constructivist view were consistently rebuffed. Even Ireland, which among the remaining 27 nations had by far the most to lose from Brexit, was not convinced. During the early days of Brexit, Ireland had some sympathy for Britain’s dilemma, and might have brokered some softening of the technocratic EU stance. But, in the words of Jacob Bronowski, that opportunity was lost through arrogance, through dogma, and through ignorance. The EU is deeply concerned about the prospects for politically-motivated violence on its northern borders, the possibility of damage to the customs union and free market, and the flailing around of a dangerously wounded British economy on its doorstep. But the attitude of the remaining EU members seems to have also hardened towards Britain, to the point where, in a curious mirroring of often-heard Brexiteer rhetoric, it’s time to ‘just let them leave’ and deal with the political and economic fallout as it arises.
Michael McBain says:
“We will have to wait a few years for a truly historical perspective on both the cause and effect of Brexit, but I think it is interesting how often proponents and opponents reach for their own historical truisms.”
In the case of Scottish Nationalism, I’m encouraged by an increasing focus on the here and now and the future prospects for an independent Scotland. There seems to be less and less focus on the Wallaces and the Bruces and their distant struggles. In their turn they did their own kind of damage to Scotland and its common wealth.
The threat to modern Scotland comes from Westminster and the City of London. Both are frightened to lose their milch cow; their golden goose. They care nothing for Scotland except to pillage.
And then they will have to deal with an increasingly discontent, and downtrodden Mercia.
Michael
A lot of the history is already there my friend.
Read Hugo Young’s ‘This Blessed Plot’ from 1997. Honestly – it’s a must read.
This seems a relevant (and optimistic) talk: http://www.theoptimisticpatriot.co.uk/post/183768318933/england-on-the-verge-of-brexit
Re Nigel Goddard’s post and link to http://www.theoptimisticpatriot.co.uk/post/183768318933/england-on-the-verge-of-brexit, I’ve read John Denham’s paper in which he seems to think that English identity can be restored and the Union preserved by creating a federal UK with devolved assemblies across England as well as those already in existence in the other nations.
I don’t contest that England might be better governed with regional assemblies, provided the UK Gov would be prepared to grant real powers. I’d have jumped at a fair and sensible federal solution for the UK 40 years ago, but there was never any prospect of either Labour or the Tories agreeing to that: their desire for absolute power was absolute, so that particular ship sailed long ago. My impression is that Denham simply doesn’t understand Scotland or the Scots, or, for that matter N Ireland and its people. From the Scottish perspective, we’ve been lied to, threatened, misled, offered false promises and stripped of wealth for so long that these have effectively become folk memories and any UK Gov of any hue will be distrusted in pretty well any circumstance.
Denham also talks at some length about Brexit being “an English creation” which must be delivered if England and the English are to re-assert their identity. However, he fails to recognise the corollary to that: in Scotland and N Ireland the majority rejected Brexit and will resist being dragged out of the EU against their wishes, with obvious consequences for the Union. In his desire to “fix” both the UK and satisfy England’s need to re-assert its identity, he appears not to have realised the inherent contradiction in his argument.
I knew Denham of old
I would like to have confidence in his analysis
I am not sure I do
Ken, thanks for your response, it prompted me to actually read the whole of Denham’s talk. I agree with you that he has nothing really to say about Scotland, and what we need. But I think he is right that the drive to Brexit is an English phenomenon, and reflects a long-developing sense amongst the English as to what it now means to be English. Scotland is being dragged along, against our will, and hopefully we will find a way to forge our own separate path soon. Richard’s post was about England. Denham’s piece is about England. Here in Scotland, while we go our own way, we still do share an island, and much history, with the English. It behoves us to understand their path, as neighbours and trading partners. I think that Denham is grappling with the problems the English need to face – and we will have a much easier time of it if they do in fact face them, not that it is our responsibility. Devolution of power within England is a key requirement, and I think here in Scotland we could also benefit from a serious examination of the centralisation in our own country – for example, centralisation of the police force for the whole country is ridiculous given the dramatically different policing needs between say the Central Belt and the Outer Islands. Anyway, I think if you read Denham’s piece as an argument about England, and ignore his relatively few statements about the union – other than it being something that England should get beyond – then it is very positive for England.
Another important and pertinent article from Richard. It goes beyond the ‘incompetence’ theory which is as far as most critics will go. It prepares the ground for considering the likelihood that there is a powerful undemocratic faction that hides under the skirts of the Monarchy who see themselves as God-given (really Monarch-given) guardians of the country and who, as such, are entitled to do whatever is necessary to protect what they see as their country. To that end they have access to the institutions set up to protect the country. This includes MI5 which has the mandate and resources to thwart any attempt to undermine the status quo. Its covert modus operandi allows it to go where other security services cannot and there are abundant indications, not confined to the Brexit debacle, that it does just that.
I’d be inclined to think the monarchy these days exists primarily as a front for this group rather than it being any other way around. They control the monarchy rather than the monarchy controlling them, the feelings of any current monarch about this being of no relevance. They’re pawns just as the rest of us are.
You may well be right, Bill. Difficult to tell the balance of power. The monarchy is certainly crucial to the ‘guardian group’ and perhaps therefore more than merely a ‘front’? Symbiosis?
Bill Kruse says:
“I’d be inclined to think the monarchy these days exists primarily as a front for…..”
….the fashion industry and as filler for the Daily express (?)
You are making a basic error in your analysis. The Tory Party is a British Unionist Party. It supports the Union. It is against Scottish and Welsh independence. It is against England having its own English Parliament. UKIIP has the same basic philosophy. To call either of them English nationalist is wrong. An English nationalist wants an independent England, is against British rule. An English nationalist does not support the UK. An English nationalist wants England out of the UK. Tory leavers and UKIP are British nationalists.
With respect, I disagree, which is exactly the point I was making
And you hardly help your case by choosing a false name and unlikely email address
Given that the Tories are, according to you, English nationalists, why don’t they support a United Ireland? I’m an English nationalist and I do. Unionst English Nationalist is surely an oxymoron? Only a British Nationalist would want to retain N.Ireland within the UK or Indeed retain the UK itself.
You might I have noticed I am suggesting that they are quite indifferent to retaining Northern Ireland
Now, very politely, clear off
I have no time for you
Independent England asks:
“Given that the Tories are, according to you, English nationalists, why don’t they support a United Ireland? ”
That’s a very good question, but since you ask it as a rhetorical question perhaps you would supply the answer (?) Because I’m fucked if I know.
Great idea, Independent England! Why doesn’t England just dissolve its Acts of Union, exit the EU and clear the way for Scotland to fast-track back into the EU as an independent state. Wales and NI could decide their futures according to their wishes and views. There you go, problem solved, everybody happy!
Interestingly the UK Government just rejected a petition to dissolve the Union (https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/251264), on the grounds that that:
“It’s about something that the UK Government or Parliament is not responsible for.
We can’t accept your petition because this would be a decision for the people of Scotland and not the UK Government or Parliament.”
Since England doesn’t have its own governing body separate from the UK Government/Parliament, it can’t dissolve the union either. So I guess it is up to us in Scotland!
I discussed this in another thread recently. It was indeed an interesting official reply to the petition, and I surmise underpins my proposition.
“It’s about something that the UK Government or Parliament is not responsible for.
We can’t accept your petition because this would be a decision for the people of Scotland and not the UK Government or Parliament.” Think about the exact wording.
England can’t dissolve the Union because of the consequences that flow from the circa 1,500 worldwide treaties, the National Debt and the predicament England would be in if it tried to do so. Scotland can’t dissolve the Union either (which I suspect, technically is the way it should be done, following precedent and the logic of the Treaties, and here I find the above wording odd. Dissolution is the one thing nobody can actually do). Scotland, however can secede from the Union, treating the Union effectively as a Federal Union, following the precedent established in 2014. England (and Wales (?), and whomsoever else stays) becomes rUK, retaining the 1,500 treaties, the currency and the National Debt. This is the only framework for rUK that works for England, and we saw that Westminster implicitly acknowleged this fundamental truth, when there was a wrangle over the currency/Sterling with Scotland in the 2014 independence referendum. Perhaps the SNP had not then (or now?) fully understood just how ‘boxed in’ to rUK England finds itself, and that it accepts. Control? England cannot quite afford to exercise it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27731725
A Point of View: Taking England back to the Dark Ages
I’m with Dr Tom Shakespeare on this – this article is from 2014 about Localism. I’ve often commented to friends about how Norfolk is now almost an entirely different country to London, and London from the North East. I think that Tom Shakespeare’s vision is a reality in all but name now. This “tribalism” has been actively encouraged by modern Politics – buoyed on by Brexit divisions. We are indeed living in a modern day Anglo-Saxon “heptarchy”. What happened to the English? I would argue we are just “reverting to default settings” – in a decade we have destroyed over 1000 years of progression.
I support a united Ireland and the desire of nations like Scotland and Catalonia to determine their own futures should they wish to. Icannot deny the same for the English should they wish it. This is simple UN charter stuff but the EU does not seem to hold such a view. I struggle to understand why an independent England is a bad thing per se but I can certainly see why an elite south east class based feudal system would be a disadvantage. Our Scots, Welsh and Irish brethren should understand that those elitists look down on us ordinary English folk as much as they do you. Indeed as much as the French elite look down on the Yellow vests. But is anyone suggesting that democracy is going backwards and greens, socialists, capitalists and anyone else cannot struggle to persuade the voters to support their policies? Time will very soon show how much of these putrid tories the English will stomach.
Phil Espin says:
“I support a united Ireland and the desire of nations like Scotland and Catalonia to determine their own futures should they wish to. I cannot deny the same for the English should they wish it. This is simple UN charter stuff but the EU does not seem to hold such a view.”
This, to my mind suggests, a deep flaw in underlying EU philosophy. As explained (by somebody I was reading) it is because the EU was always about creating a balance between France and Germany; each wanting to keep the ambitions of the other in check. The much prized English diplomacy should have been a great help in achieving this, but on the basis of what we’ve seen in the last couple of years English diplomacy is a lost art.
…and there is a quite rational belief that the ‘English’ mindset does not want independence it wants to dominate. It certainly wants to dominate its own ‘precious union’. Clearly this is a crass generalisation, but it does seem to be the mindset of those we elect to positions in government. The problem of how we select and elect our political class is going to determine whether the experiment we have been engaged in, (for some generations) to espouse democracy, actually continues or falls apart. This is not a problem exclusive to the UK. Far from it; the very same battle is being fought in the US and across Europe.
I think the single biggest thing we’re getting wrong is to allow increased centralisation of governance. We DO need centralised macro governance, international agreement, so nations can cooperate, but we’re getting centralised micro governance. We don’t like that, do we. (?) ‘One size fits all’, fits nobody.
Last, especially, well put
Welcome to 9 years of Proportional Representative style coalition government – just like the continent – how about a visit to Belgium Capital Brussels who hold the record for the longest time without a government 2 years!
But we do not have such a government…..
Gavin says:
“Welcome to 9 years of Proportional Representative style coalition government — just like the continent — how about a visit to Belgium Capital Brussels who hold the record for the longest time without a government 2 years!”
We haven’t had a government here in Westminster either since 2017.
And when we next get a GE, unless some major change takes place, we’ll have two co-coalition parties to choose from. A Tory coalition or a Labour coalition. Both parties are now so ‘broad church’ as to bear meaningless titles.
We’ll get some semblance of government by default. The party which fails to get it’s vote to turn out will lose again. Possibly by an unhealthy margin of seats not the least reflective of the number of votes cast. It really isn’t good enough.
I’d be interested in what commenters and Richard, when he has time, think of Rawnsley’s romp through history, “From Corn Laws to cold war, what history can teach us about Brexit” that presumably will come out in the Observer tomorrow. It strikes me as essentially superficial so that it is difficult to learn much that will be informative about Brexit, but, then, I am no historian.
All he appears to be saying is that divided parties split the country and lose el3lctions.
As you say, pretty superficial
It’s trite, in the sense that it stat3s the obvious and good historical analysis should do more than that.
For ‘Rawnsley’ read ‘Yawn-sley’ …Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Responding to Marie Thomas:
As an Australian, the English class system manifests itself for me in various British TV talk shows with their veiled references to certain accents or activities as being ‘posh’; I am able to understand the secret code. I am glad only to have to see it from a great distance. Michael Parkinson quotes the British actress Enid Lorimer, who lived for many years in Australia, as saying “The British invented the word ‘snob’. Australians have no idea how to spell it'”.
On Brexit, I still think the best quote ever was from the Irish comedian Dara Ó Briain. He said “Brexit for the English is like a psychosis, similar in almost every way to that of gun control for the Americans, and just as impossible to argue around. No amount of killing will erase it”.