How England lost its way

Share this article

The UK has been in an almost continuous political crisis since 2016. But it may be time to look beneath the surface turmoil and wonder whether deeper factors are in play. We may now be in a chronic politico-cultural dégringolade. (Most of what follows applies principally to England. The other nations are different.)

Longer perspectives are desirable. The English are used to political stability. That might seem to be a paradoxical claim, refuted by much of their history. What about the struggles over the Reformation, the Civil War, Ireland and more recently, Scotland? Yes, and no. There were conflicts in earlier epochs, some of them bloody, but in comparison with our continental neighbours, and the United States, we have had a remarkably trouble-free evolution.

It might be tempting for the English – I am a Scotsman – to attribute this to moral superiority. But there is a more mundane explanation: the English Channel, which insulated the country from the worst ravages of warfare on the continent. This was abetted by two further factors. First, England became a unitary state at an early stage in its history. That was reinforced by the Common Law, which President John Adams described as virtually a work of divine providence. In turn, this was strengthened by the myths surrounding Magna Carta. Far earlier than the inhabitants of any continental country (with the possible exception of Switzerland), Englishmen came to believe that they had rights buttressed by law. This survived the constitutional struggles of the 17th century.

Apropos of those, even a staunch Tory might reluctantly concede that the victory of the Whigs was a desirable outcome. Although Macaulay’s overweening complacency has irritated generations of Tories, he was broadly right. The Glorious Revolution laid a constitutional foundation which facilitated the peaceful growth of democracy, the modern state and economic growth. Equally, England was largely immune from the malign political consequences of nationalism and romanticism. They may have begun with the ‘Ode to Joy’. Too often, they ended with goose-stepping in jackboots.

Ireland excepted, the English/British can also claim to have been extremely benign imperialists, as well as being in the forefront of moves to suppress and abolish slavery. More recently, the British wound down their Empire in a civilised manner. A Royal Duke would salute as the Union Jack came down, and the incoming government then applied to join the Commonwealth.

All this gives the English – Scotland is different, because of an inexplicable chippiness – good reason for a quiet pride in their own past, as does post-war economic prosperity. In the 20th century, the Channel no longer offered the protection that we had formerly enjoyed. We were embroiled in European wars, and the country virtually bankrupted itself in helping to win them. But gradually, living standards recovered. In a fallen world, in which original sin is still the best summary of the human condition, the English can console themselves that the fall has been less severe; the burden of sin, lighter.

So why does almost everyone seem so unhappy? Before attempting an explanation, we ought to consider the malign consequence of this truculent social mood. Michael Oakeshott wrote that civilisation is only a collective dream. But such a happy dream can only be enjoyed on a comfortable bed of order. In turn, that depends on consent. Thomas Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ is not enough. Law is the Siamese twin of order. Most of us obey the laws not merely because of their coercive powers but because, however grumblingly, we give consent to the legal system. The risk is that to a widespread extent, this consent is now being withdrawn. So is respect for the political process.

Back in 1997, I remember worrying about that. John Major had suffered a degree of derision which destroyed a decent premiership. Ever since he lost office, his reputation has grown. This is only partly because of the failure of his successors. Reasonable people have come to recognise that he was a decent man and not at all a bad prime minister, in difficult circumstances. To admit a misjudgment, I had no idea how successful Tony Blair would be in commending himself to the public. I thought it quite likely that he would be exposed as frivolous. Following on Major’s travails, that would have been unhealthy. Respect is an essential ingredient of the body politic.

Now, however, it is in perilously short supply. A lot of voters now believe that they are governed by a collection of mediocrities: characters with little ability and less reverence for their country. If they do not respect Britain, many people are arguing, why should we respect them? It is not easy to see how this can be put right, and certainly not by Keir Starmer.

What has gone wrong? The answer is simple: disruptive change. This started decades ago, with the decline of religion, which often reconciled humankind to the less pleasant aspects of the human condition. Hobbes, the old cynic, wrote that the poor would find their reward in the Kingdom of Heaven. Many of the poor would have agreed. There was also the decline of the family, that strong social penicillin which has been a promoter of stability. This is no longer true. 

There have been other changes, of a political nature. They have led many Englishmen and Englishwomen to feel that they no longer understand what is happening to their country, because of changes imposed by a political leadership which seems increasingly alien. The two principal issues, closely related, are immigration and Europe. 

Perhaps we can put this down to the words of Dean Acheson, Harry Truman’s foreign policy advisor. He said that Britain had lost an Empire, but not yet found a role. That struck a painful chord with much of the political class. But they thought that they had found an answer: Europe. This had three consequences. First, and rightly, many voters came to conclude that they had been sold a false prospectus. They were told that we would be joining a Common Market, which would help our economy. They gradually realised that fundamentally, Europe was a political project: ever closer union. Membership would mean that we were losing control of our borders – the moat would be filled in – and our legal system. The grandeur of the Common Law, plus the supremacy of the Crown in Parliament, would be replaced by a European Convention on Human Rights. (Although the ECHR is not part of the EU, it is part of the same syndrome.)

Introducing Europe into our political system was a form of transplant surgery. The assumption was that early on, we might need a heavy dose of immuno-suppressant drugs, but with every passing year, that would be less necessary. This turned out to be untrue. From the referendum to the Southport riots, the rejection response is as strong as ever. Both were a manifestation of the withdrawal of consent which is now manifest.

Yet this is not incurable. Two measures are necessary. The first is rigorous control of immigration. That means declaring that no illegal immigrant will ever be allowed to settle here. If they cannot be deported, they must be properly detained, which would provide an austere existence; their only hope of change being a return to their own country. Control of immigration also means a clamp-down on asylum. The current arrangements predate mass air travel. Moreover, countless millions of persons throughout the globe could claim to meet the criteria necessary for asylum, and ‘human rights’ lawyers, generally friends of Starmer’s, are waiting to help process their claim. We must harden our hearts. We must also repudiate the claims of foreign courts to override our legal system.

History and geography endowed England with a glorious heritage: secure borders and a legal system guaranteeing the rule of law – our law – and with it, protection of the lives and liberties of His Majesty’s subjects. To recover that protection, otherwise decent people have recently been breaking the law. That is wrong of them, and it is indeed un-English. But they have been sorely provoked. Europe and immigration are the grievance of grievances. This must be addressed, so that the populace will calm down while right-minded politicians have the opportunity to rebuild consent. 

Share this article