The Great Britain I love is dying. We have one last chance to save it
Imagine yourself back 30 years ago. If somehow you had been given a glimpse into the country's future, I am pretty confident certain things would have seemed quite incredible. To choose just a few not-quite-random recent examples:
That we would have ignored the well-known fact of the mass gang rape of young girls across British cities for decades;
That the British state would be unable to build a railway line between London and Birmingham and would spend nearly £100 billion proving it;
That Parliament would allow women to kill their unborn baby at any point without committing any crime.
You might have said in response that surely there must have been a massive change in the demographic, cultural, practical and indeed moral characteristics of Britain to make this possible. You might have said 'That doesn't sound like the same country I live in now', the country which had dragged itself out of a huge economic and political hole, played a huge role in winning the Cold War, and just finished building a tunnel under the sea to France.
And I think you would be right. Of course there has been no sudden moment of change. As 1990s-you got older, you might have detected glimmers of what was to come in the saga of the Millennium Dome or the 2001 Bradford riots. But there would come a moment when you would look around and say 'Now I see it. Things really are different now'.
What we are living through today, in a phrase, is an unprecedented break in national continuity. As a country we are disconnecting from the old Britain. The Britain of our national story is disappearing, the Britain of the Romans through the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans, the Tudors, Nelson and Wellington, the two world wars and even the Attlee settlement.
Gone is the Britain of Christianity and the Church as a core component of British identity, and moral judgement has become utilitarian, about what is convenient, disconnected from any traditional, let alone transcendental, set of values.
Fast receding is the Britain of real state capacity and national ambition, as we move from Victorian St Pancras to the hole in the ground at Euston, from the first nuclear power station back to the windmill.
Our national character is changing. We are, at last, becoming the 'young country', the country without a past, that Tony Blair wanted.
Part of the reason is immigration, in particular the genuinely mass migration of the last decade or two, making London close to a majority foreign-born city and giving us our first taste of ethnic and communal politics.
But equally, perhaps even more, responsible is the phenomenon of secular progressivism, turbo-charged into aggressive wokeism, with its belief that the historical past is irrelevant and probably actively immoral, and its determination to produce heaven on earth by releasing people from one inherited constraint after another, including finally those of biology itself.
We have become a very different society over the last 30 years. And I think one unusual indicator captures it: the name of the country. Over the 1990s you would have seen 'Great Britain' slowly becoming 'the UK'. Google NGram shows that before 1960 the term 'UK' was barely used. Then, between 1980 and 2000, it suddenly leaps up to become much the most common term for the country, well above 'Britain' or 'Great Britain'. It still is.
I don't think this is by chance. The only real parallel is the 'USA', a country which makes a virtue of its newness and of its origins in a political idea. I think the 'UK' as a term spread for similar reasons. It felt inclusive and in line with the ideology of multiculturalism in a young country. People coming here could retain their ethnic and cultural markers, their connection with the old country, while being a 'UK' citizen too.
You could choose a traditional British historical or cultural identity, like that of England or Scotland, but you didn't have to. As a result, the word 'British' gradually ceased to be an ethnic or cultural term and became simply the adjective relating to the noun 'UK'. And we became known to the world not by a historical name but as a bureaucratic abbreviation.
Some commentators on social media now go one step further and now, humorously or derisively, call us not the UK but the 'Yookay'. As you'll find if you google them, the term was initially used to symbolise the particular aesthetic quality of much of the modern UK, that jarring mixture of cultures bolted onto the pre-existing British environment. The American candy store next to the kebab shop with its modern signage stuck onto a half-timbered building. The scattered Lime bikes and discarded Deliveroo bags slung wherever on the street. And the soundtrack of modern Britain, multicultural London English with its global slang, the drill music on the train without headphones. If you live in a city, you recognise it.
But the 'Yookay' now has a wider implication too: to suggest with the new name that we are now a new country, an actual successor state to the old Great Britain, distinct from it as I have described. And indeed we are becoming it: the Wessex or Mercia to Roman Britain, the ' island of strangers ' in Starmer's genius phrase, grottier, 'scuzzier' as The Spectator put it the other day, with a different national character, and with lower national ambition.
Happily the transformation isn't complete yet. We don't have to become the Yookay. We don't have to live out our days like Roman villa-owners farming our estates as things collapse around us.
Economic, social, and political reform – everything I have been setting out here over the years – can get us back on track. But for that we need politicians who can see what's going on and who care enough to get the country moving again – and who can reach back to the past, back beyond that break in continuity, to get the national energy to make it happen.
For as George Orwell put it, in the final words of his great wartime essay The Lion and the Unicorn, 'we must add to our heritage or lose it, we must grow greater or grow less, we must go forward or backward. I believe in England, and I believe that we shall go forward.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Trainline sues Transport Secretary over ‘secret' deal for state-owned rail operator
Trainline is suing Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, over the alleged backdoor award of a £32m ticketing contract by state-owned operator LNER. LNER, which has been run by the Department for Transport (DfT) since 2018, recently extended a ticketing sales platform contract it uses without offering rivals such as Trainline the chance to bid for the 10-year deal. Trainline claims that the failure to seek alternative bids means that Ms Alexander and LNER ignored due process as well as the best interests of passengers and the taxpayer. It alleges that the publication of the award on the Government's procurement website on December 23 was also too opaque because it effectively buried the news during Christmas week, limiting the ability of other parties to respond. LNER awarded the contract for the central booking engine that supports its digital ticket sales to Australia's Vix Technology. Trainline has its own rival division providing a similar 'white label' service to train operators and would have expected to compete for the work had it been tendered. It is understood that the company, which has filed the claim at the Technology and Construction Court against LNER and the Transport Secretary, will claim that a direct award of the contract was not permissible under procurement law because the terms were being varied in scope, duration and beneficiaries. The terms of the award also mean that the ticketing platform used by LNER, which operates between London Kings Cross and Scotland via Leeds and Newcastle, could be extended across the rail network. Rail unions have pressed Labour to squeeze out third-party ticket bookers such as Trainline, with the RMT accusing the company of engaging in 'relentless profiteering.' While the Government plans to simplify fares and ticketing as part of its nationalisation of the railway, it has nevertheless said that there would still be a need for 'an innovative and competitive third-party retail market.' Trainline even hosted the launch of the nationalisation policy by Louise Haigh, the then-transport secretary, last year. Labour subsequently ruled out establishing a national website and app to promote cheaper fares in competition with the firm. However, it reversed that guidance in January to say that a plan to bring together the ticket websites of individual operators was now in the pipeline. Though the DfT maintained that private-sector retailers would be able to compete in an open and fair manner, shares of Trainline, which has 18m customers, have since fallen by almost one third.
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Assisted dying bill passes in parliament after MPs vote in favour
MPs have voted in favour of the assisted dying bill which will legalise the right for terminally ill people in England and Wales to end their own life with medical assistance. In a historic vote, MPs voted 314 to 219 in favour of the bill, backing the right for adults with less than six months to live to choose to end their own lives. MPs began voting on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, brought forward by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater, just after 2pm on Friday as opposition and pro-change campaigners gathered outside Parliament. It came after an often highly emotional debate in the Commons with MPs from across the political divide making impassioned arguments for and against. Friday's vote does not mean the bill immediately becomes law as it will now transfer to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. The upper chamber can make amendments to the bill and pass it back to MPs but it is expected this process will happen fairly quickly as the final date they can currently consider a Private Members' Bill in this parliamentary session is July 11. There are several more stages of scrutiny in both chambers for the bill to go through before it heads to the King to receive royal assent and become law. Even with all of these processes it could still be another four years before the first person in the UK is able to legally make use of assisted dying services as the bill allows this time for the government to work out how it is implemented. Under Leadbeater's bill, for a person to be eligible, they must be over the age of 18 and have the mental capacity to make the choice. When MPs lasted voted on this bill it stipulated those seeking to end their life must have the decision signed off by at least two doctors and a High Court judge. MPs have since dropped this final requirement in favour of an "expert panel" which includes a lawyer, a psychiatrist and a social worker. This move has divided some with some viewing it as an improvement and others seeing it as less substantial. Assisted dying is currently banned in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. The last time MPs voted on the issue in 2015, the bill was defeated by 330 votes to 118, but the composition of the Commons has significantly changed since then following this year's general election with more Labour MPs sitting. A total of 605 out of 650 MPs voted on this bill last time. It was a free vote, meaning the government's position on this was officially neutral. The voting came slightly later in the day as MPs finished voting on amendments they ran out of time for in the previous debate. MPs voted to reject an amendment making people ineligible for assisted dying if their wish to end their life was motivated by not wanting to be a burden, a mental disorder, a disability, financial considerations, a lack of access to care, or suicidal ideation. An amendment to close a loophole allowing someone to seek assisted dying as a result of voluntarily stopping eating enjoyed wide support and was passed without a vote. MPs rejected a vote removing the "presumption of capacity," which would have required people seeking to end their life to first prove they had the mental capacity to do so. Parliament voted against a technical amendment seeking to prevent the government from being able to alter the founding purposes of the NHS and in favour of amendments clarifying where parts of this bill will take effect as well as a commitment for the government to publish a review of palliative care in one year. This matter is a devolved issue for the UK and Friday's main vote will only affect England and Wales.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Attack at the Iranian Embassy: Two pro-Israel protesters taken to hospital after being set upon - as police arrest six men
Police have arrested six men after two pro-Israel protesters were attacked in a major incident outside the Iranian Embassy today. Detectives have launched an urgent probe after the two men were set upon outside the embassy, which is opposite Hyde Park in west London, just before 10am. Officers and paramedics swooped on Princes Gate, Knightsbridge, scrambling to detain suspects and treat the injured activists. Witnesses told MailOnline how pro-Israeli protesters were chanting support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and calling for the Iranian regime to be toppled before violence erupted and two of the activists were attacked. It comes amid heightened tensions in the Middle East, with Iran and Israel locked in a brutal conflict that has escalated over the last week. The two victims were treated for injuries at the scene and have been taken to hospital. Dramatic pictures from the scene show the protesters being treated by paramedics on stretchers and receiving oxygen, while the alleged attackers were seen being hauled away in handcuffs. Police said six men have been arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm and are being quizzed in custody. The Iranian Embassy became a focal point for protests in 2022 after the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in police custody. Protest organiser Shahla Rostami, described the violence outside the Iranian embassy as a 'bloody scene'. The university chief executive said that the protest in favour of Israeli's military actions against Iran and the toppling of the Ayatollah was a brutal attack by Iranian agitators. 'We have been here for a week with a permit from the Metropolitan Police. 'This was a completely peaceful protest without any violence until a man kissing an Iranian flag came up to us and attacked one of our group. He came right up and started punching one of our group. 'It was quite a bloody scene, and although we do not know this, it would not surprise me if the man was paid by the Iranian government to carry out the attack.' It is understood that the victim of the assault had his ankle sliced off by the attacker. Police officers arrested the attack and one man was sent to the trauma unit at a nearby hospital. Police officers split up the protest and told those gathered that they would not be allowed back outside the embassy until Sunday at 1pm. A diplomat from the Dominican Republic saw the fight from his office window. 'I was on my phone taking a call when I saw a man rush over. He was a very big guy and he hit one of the men in the leg with something. 'Then as the man he was attacking fell to the ground he began to hit him repeatedly until people came over and dragged him off.' Speaking about the Iranian embassy more generally the diplomat observed that the staff observed strict security measures and are rarely seen. 'They are straight into the cars and then out. It is very quick and we never really see them.' A spokesman for the Met Police said: 'At 09:53hrs on Friday, 20 June officers responded to reports of an altercation in Princes Gate, SW1. 'Six men have been arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm – they remain in police custody. 'Two men were treated for injuries at the scene and have been taken to hospital for further treatment by the London Ambulance Service. 'Police have cordoned off the area while initial investigations take place.' A London Ambulance Service spokesperson said: 'We were called at 9.56am today (20 June) to reports of an assault in Princes Gate, SW7. 'We sent a number of resources to the scene including ambulance crews, paramedics in fast response cars and our Tactical Response Unit. 'We treated two patients at the scene and took one to hospital and one to a major trauma centre.'
