LARS MØLLER
For centuries, Britain — and England in particular — has represented a civilizational ideal for much of the modern world. The birthplace of parliamentary democracy, the common law system, and global standards of governance, Britain has exported its political and cultural values far beyond its shores. At home, it once epitomized social cohesion, stability, and civic pride. Yet, in the 21st century, many Britons — particularly in working-class communities — report a growing sense of cultural alienation. Towns like Bradford, Luton, and Rotherham now evoke, for some, a sense of displacement rather than belonging. This perception of a “de-Anglification” of England, whereby traditional English culture appears to be losing ground in its own homeland, reflects a deeper civilizational unease.
There is a need to explore the causes and consequences of this transformation, including the policies of the New Labour government, the fragmentation of national identity, the failure of integration, and the erosion of trust in public institutions. To understand present-day anxieties, one must first consider the roots of British identity. The British Empire, despite its contradictions, built a national self-image centered on civility, order, and moral leadership. At home, this was expressed through shared cultural norms, Protestant ethics, the English language, and pride in legal and political institutions.
After WWII, as the empire dissolved, Britain opened its doors to immigrants from the Caribbean, South Asia, and Africa — partly to rebuild the economy, partly in recognition of shared imperial ties. This demographic shift was not initially perceived as a threat to British identity, but the scale and pace of change eventually altered the social fabric of many urban centers. The shift towards multiculturalism, particularly from the 1980s onwards, replaced integration with cultural coexistence — at the insidious cost of national cohesion.
A pivotal turning point came during the New Labour government of Tony Blair (1997–2007). Under Blair, Britain saw one of the most profound and rapid demographic transformations in its history. The government’s approach to immigration was not simply about filling labor shortages or responding to humanitarian crises. It was a consciously ideological project.
Blair’s Communications Director, Alastair Campbell, played a crucial role in crafting the public messaging around these changes. Internal documents revealed years later show that Labour ministers and strategists saw mass immigration as a tool to reshape British society. According to political commentator Andrew Neather, a former Labour speechwriter, one of the aims of the government’s immigration policy was to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”.
Between 1997 and 2010, net migration increased dramatically. The government allowed workers from new EU accession states — especially Poland and other Eastern European countries — unrestricted access to the UK labor market in 2004, despite transitional controls exercised by other EU countries. Combined with high levels of immigration from outside the EU, this created unprecedented demographic shifts.
What made these policies so controversial was partly their scope, partly the lack of public consultation. Blair’s government did not fully disclose the expected numbers, nor did it adequately prepare public services for the impact. Overcrowded schools, pressure on housing, and increased strain on the NHS became flashpoints. The result was social tension and a growing sense that the political class had imposed radical changes on the country without democratic consent.
Even Blair, in later interviews, conceded that “mistakes” were made — particularly in failing to anticipate the consequences of opening the borders to Eastern Europe so rapidly. Yet the damage to public trust had already been done. The period under Blair laid the groundwork for the popular backlash that would follow, including the Brexit vote of 2016.
One of the most visible effects of mass immigration has been the creation of parallel communities in British cities. Places like Tower Hamlets, Leicester, Birmingham, and parts of Manchester and Bradford have undergone such dramatic demographic change that native-born Britons sometimes find themselves minorities in their own neighborhoods.
The policy of “multiculturalism”, adopted with enthusiasm during the Blair years, was meant to promote “inclusion”. In practice, it led to “cultural segregation”. Rather than fostering integration, it allowed ethnic and religious groups to preserve their own norms, practices, and even languages — typically with minimal interaction with the broader society.
Some of these enclaves have developed informal governance systems, such as unofficial Sharia councils, which mediate family disputes and community issues. Critics argue that such bodies undermine British legal principles, especially in relation to women’s rights and equal treatment under the law. While immigrants in general are declared to be law-abiding and contribute positively to society, the rise of parallel legal or cultural systems has raised fundamental questions about sovereignty, equality, and national cohesion.
Perhaps the most shocking symptom of institutional failure in this multicultural framework has been the series of rape gang scandals across towns such as Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford, and Oxford. Over decades, thousands of vulnerable young girls — mostly white and working-class — were sexually abused by predominantly Pakistani Muslim men, while police and local councils failed to act.
Apart from the sheer brutality of the pedophile crimes, a deeply disturbing aspect of these scandals was the refusal of authorities to intervene. Internal reports and whistleblower testimonies revealed that police and social workers hesitated to act for fear of being accused of “racism”. In doing so, institutions charged with protecting the vulnerable chose political correctness over justice.
This has irreparably damaged public trust. Many Britons now believe that their own institutions prioritize ideological narratives over the safety and rights of ordinary citizens. The rape gang scandals have become emblematic of a broader sense of cultural betrayal and institutional cowardice.
These tensions have been felt most acutely among white working-class communities, particularly in post-industrial towns left behind by globalization. As factories closed and stable jobs disappeared, these communities found themselves economically displaced — and then, increasingly, culturally marginalized.
Many feel that immigration has not only brought competition for scarce jobs and housing, but has also eroded their sense of cultural continuity. English customs, traditions, and even the English language are sometimes seen as less valued than imported identities. There is a widespread feeling that the white working class is the only group not allowed to express pride in its heritage without being branded “racist” or “reactionary”.
This sentiment contributed powerfully to the Brexit vote, which was as much a cultural revolt as a political one. The call to “take back control” was not merely about Brussels; it was about identity, sovereignty, and the right to shape one’s own community.
Across the board, British institutions are facing a legitimacy crisis. From the police to Parliament, from the education system to the BBC, there is a perception that elites are out of touch with the people that they claim to represent. The law appears inconsistently applied; public discourse is increasingly censored; and political correctness seems to override common sense.
The result is an atmosphere of cultural dissolution and indifference to authority. Where once there was respect for tradition, hierarchy, and civic responsibility, there is now cynicism, suspicion, and a sense of drift. In many communities, respect for the rule of law has given way to resentment and disengagement.
Is Britain lost forever? Well, renewal requires transparency, courage, and a reassertion of national purpose: a) immigration should be limited and strategically managed; b) integration should replace passive multiculturalism; c) working-class voices should be heard; and d) British history and identity should be taught in full: with honesty about past wrongs, but also pride in the country’s achievements and traditions.
Britain needs rebuilding. Beyond the projections of immigration statistics, the “de-Anglification” of England reflects a deeper breakdown in national confidence and social contract. The Blair-era policies, driven by ideology rather than consent, played a key role in accelerating this transformation. The resulting fragmentation, institutional paralysis, and cultural alienation cannot be resolved by nostalgia or populism alone.
Instead, a serious, democratic reckoning with these issues is needed. After deciding on the option of large-scale remigration, Britain must reforge a shared identity based on civic loyalty, mutual respect, and a renewed commitment to the principles that once made it admired around the world. That task is urgent, and the time to begin is now.
This article (Britain In the Balance) was created and published by American Thinker and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Lars Møller
Featured image: Wikimedia Commons: British School (Hans Holbein the Younger, 1545)
Leave a Reply