The disunited kingdom
The establishment must confront the disturbing realities of sectarian politics in the UK
CHARLES NAPIER
Slowly, and by no means surely, the British political establishment is being forced to acknowledge the divided nature of the country over which it now presides.
This process has not been without significant resistance and self-delusion. Having ignored the doubters when they embarked on a policy of mass migration during the 20th century, the ever-more frequent case studies which proved the folly of this project were, one-by-one, ignored.
The vote-rigging scandal amongst Birmingham’s Muslim community in 2004 was largely written-off as a unique case. George Galloway’s by-election victory in Bradford West, 2011, was written off as well — this time, as an isolated case of public frustration with Western foreign policy in the Middle East.
The Lutfur Rahman case in 2015 was likewise treated as an isolated incident. The fact that a local mayor was able to win elections by exploiting family networks amongst the Bangladeshi community, should have been the canary in the coal mine — but it wasn’t.
On, and on, and on — but slowly, the reality of the situation has begun to dawn on those who created it.
It will surprise nobody to hear that self-delusion did not actually make the inevitable problems of mass migration go away. Nor did legal prohibition of open discussion about these problems, or the social censure of those who raised them. In fact, this approach allowed those problems to fester, and grow.
The Israeli war in Gaza did not cause political sectarianism in Britain, but it did amplify the phenomenon, and make it easier to identify. The Labour Party’s cautious approach to the war drove a wedge between party leadership, and the Muslim voters upon whom Labour have been able to rely for decades. Independent Muslim candidates began to recognise that they were sufficiently numerous, in large parts of the country, to win on the basis of Muslim votes alone. Where Muslims make up a large, but not decisive, proportion of the population, the Green Party recognised that they could prise Muslim voters away from Labour, by ostentatiously representing their interests and appealing to their views, on issues where Muslim opinion diverges most ostentatiously from the British mainstream.
Political sectarianism, which had largely been localised or implicit, was thrown out into the open, for all to see. In 2024, George Galloway returned, this time through a by-election in Rochdale. At local elections in 2024 and 2025, sectarian independents were able to capitalise on the trend. At the 2024 General Election, sectarian independents won four seats — while other religious and ethnic communities put pressure on candidates to reflect their interests, in a zero-sum competition for resources and attention. Earlier this year, the Gorton & Denton by-election highlighted the problem once again.
Britain is a country in which political sectarianism is a live issue
This is the normal rhythm of politics in most of the world, but has rarely been the case in Britain — and particularly, in England. Indeed, our institutions, both social and political, are designed on the assumption that people will not behave on the basis of group-based or clan-based interest, but on the basis of individual interest and belief. Sectarianism has been rare and localised, mostly arising from Irish Catholic migration to the British mainland.
But the new sectarianism is not an emerging trend, or a burgeoning problem, or a terrifying hypothetical. It is the reality. It is a fact. Britain is a country in which political sectarianism is a live issue.
Where, then, can we go from here? There are three basic outcomes.
The first outcome is the preference of most in the British political establishment. Often, in sectarian societies, the elite class acknowledges sectarianism as a fact, but does not actively try to counter it. Instead, it attempts to manage it. Each group in society — including, in this case, the English — is given equal regard as a stakeholder to be managed. Institutions are designed to minimise direct conflict and friction, largely through compromise. National identity is shaped to be as inclusive as possible, even to the detriment of the groups which built and shaped society in the first place. Different groups are represented by different political parties or factions, and compromise between those groups becomes the basis for political decision-making.
If nothing changes, this will be the approach taken by the British political establishment. We can already see this taking shape, including through parallel judicial, legal, and educational institutions. Keir Starmer’s most recent St. George’s Day address was revealing in this regard — his remarks focused on chiding the English, as one subject people amongst many, for their apparent lack of commitment to the project of coexistence.
In most cases, this approach results in economic and social stagnation, as zero-sum compromises prevent the kind of positive-sum political experiments that enable countries to progress and thrive. In all cases, it involves the removal of freedoms and liberties from all groups. After all, political freedom enables conflict to be resolved openly, and open conflict is impermissible in a system designed to force different groups to coexist.
The second outcome is really the failure-state of the first. If groups cannot be managed by a high-handed, compromise-minded elite, then they will descend into the kind of sporadic violence which has characterised life in Northern Ireland, in Bosnia, and in Lebanon in decades gone by. Politics ceases to be relevant, other than as a process by which conflict might be paused. This outcome is that of the failed state, and it is an outcome that we may live to see.
The third outcome is the victory of one group over the others — either because that group overwhelms all others in numerical terms, or because it becomes sufficiently powerful to enforce norms and behaviours onto other groups. In the British context, this would mean the re-empowerment of the British people — as the group from which the British state’s legitimacy is derived, and as the group that the British state is designed to serve. Other groups might be prevented from growing by the ending of mass migration, they might assimilate into the cultural and behavioural norms of the British people, including through intermarriage — and, for some people, they might simply leave.
We know that these are the available outcomes, because the normal state of politics — across the world and throughout history — is sectarian. We have countless examples to draw from, and they all, ultimately, fall into one of these three brackets.
We must remain sceptical of politicians, or commentators, who insist that one outcome or another is inevitable. History is contingent. We are still in a position to choose between any of these outcomes — though some will be harder to reach than others, and the road toward them will be painful. It would have been better to never have created this problem in the first place, but now that we have, we must decide how we wish to resolve it.
This article (The disunited kingdom) was created and published by The Critic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Charles Napier
Featured image: The Critic
See Related Article Below
Tori Peck: Young women have a right to be angry- but we can’t let them be hypnotised by the Greens
TORI PECK
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Tori Peck is a Conservative campaigner and activist.
Scrolling through social media the morning after the Gorton and Denton by-election, showed me two parallel universes.
On X, where I follow politics, the result was met with despair. Posts about sectarianism and the end of 2 party politics. On Instagram, where I follow real life friends and lifestyle accounts people were enthusiastically posting what they thought was a brilliant result.
I had a similar feeling when the interesting New Statesman article on ‘Angry Young Women’ came out. Those who spend time in the space recognised the growing disenfranchisement of young women whilst plenty on the right seemed incredulous that women are looking around and not liking what they see.
Whether you agree with their views or not, it’s important that those on the right understand what’s driving this move further left. It matters because women under 50 are more likely to vote Green than any other party. That’s a quarter of all voters and follows international patterns of growing gender voting gaps.
Even after losing two seats to them at the last election, we haven’t taken the threat from the Greens seriously. Their significant rise in popularity is not simply going to damage the Labour Party.
It’s not any green policy, nor really any polices that are turning heads; social media and vibes are a stronger determinant.
Young women are spending more time online than anyone else. The sites that they use are not overtly political, nor are they actively seeking Green content, but what they do see shapes the news they notice and the views they hold. These spaces often feed a politics that society is broken for them and that the fault lies with the unfair powers that sit within the traditional political system.
It is also a politics that is staunchly pro-Gaza as a measure of moral purity, resulting in recent polling showing Gaza as the number one issue for women under 25. Any pursuit of sectarianism is equally likely to gain the support of many young women.
Whilst Labour did fairly well with young women in 2024, they have more reason than most to feel let down by them. Economic decisions have disproportionately impacted the sectors and types of jobs women rely on. Home ownership remains less likely for them than anyone else. Failed by politicians promising change and delivering not the same, but worse. Prioritising the old over the young.
Young women (and men) are conscious of being in the first generations where life chances for them are smaller than generations before them, and even smaller for the next.
As disenfranchised young men found Farage, disenfranchised young women are energised by Polanski. His reach across social media works so well because it is organic, highly curated and largely unchallenged.
Short of extending the social media ban from 16 to 60, this trend is difficult to beat. But we are increasingly making cut through organically on the issues that women care about, being true to our values.
Recent announcements on student loans are effective, addressing both immediate cost of living pressures and the sense of unfairness. The phone free schools campaign has proved very popular and visible with women, distinguishing the Conservatives as the party that fights for issues that matter to them. In an age of disillusionment with politicians, Kemi’s authenticity matters.
A renewed Conservative offer must include a renewed case for capitalism that works, for those whose political consciousness came after 2008. And set out a positive vision for a country and future that works, both to those who believe our history shames us, and to those who believe our glory lies only in our past.
At the same time, we cannot leave the challenge of the Green Party to the left. We must be forensic in showing their deluded policies for what they are. For when people see past the vibes, they don’t always like what’s there.
On Mumsnet, which I’ve written about before, there is some sympathy for the Greens but women are drawing the line on their views on sex-based rights. Their platform of ‘making hope normal again’ makes a great Instagram post but there is nothing hopeful about their employment and business policies and nothing normal about having wanted to legislate against childbirth intervention.
Whether you like it or not, politics has changed. It is incumbent on us to find, and fight for our place in the new politics.
The voting patterns of Gorton and Denton are not likely to be replicated like for like in any other seat at the next general election, nor the locals. But there is a growing challenge in every seat with each Tory candidate facing a 4/5-way vote split with some of the messiest tactical voting ever seen.
The Greens are playing an ever-increasing role in this and benefitting from it. The right must play a more active role in challenging them too.
We may know that Zack Polanksi is a clown, and a dangerous one at that. But he’s the one laughing right now.