Labour’s New Integration and Extremism Policy and Why the State Wants to Clamp Down on Homeschooling

DAVID SHIPLEY

The government’s new cohesion strategy, ‘Protecting What Matters: Towards a more confident, cohesive and resilient United Kingdom’, has attracted attention because of its introduction of an ‘anti Muslim hostility’ code, its erasure of the English as an ethnic identity, and its quite confused and bizarre messaging. What has so far gone unremarked is its Mussolinian energy regarding education.

This goal is clear. A whole raft of new rules will apply to schools. There will be obligatory citizenship classes, including a promise to ‘raise awareness of threats to democracy’. This takes on a rather more sinister tone when you realise that elsewhere the document redefines patriotism to mean agreeing with the government’s policies on diversity and multiculturalism, and being opposed to those who are ‘pining for some imagined past’. The report goes even further, describing the idea that the English are an ethnic group as an idea of ‘the extreme right’, which ‘the vast majority of people reject’.

The Communities Secretary, Steve Reed states in his foreword that those ‘who want to divide us’ are ‘hostile actor[s]’ who the state believes it has to ‘protect our country from’. So we can expect children to be taught that those who repeat the actual history of these isles and their people, or who oppose multiculturalism, are ‘threats to democracy’.

Similarly the promise to ‘strengthen the national curriculum…to ensure high quality teaching of our nation’s history’ which would pass unremarked, were it not found in a report which advances such nonsensical history, including the suggestion that England has always experienced significant migration.

Even worse, the government intends to keep more dangerous children in schools. The paper includes a promise to ‘work with schools to tackle racist abuse and understand disparities in exclusions.’ It’s worth recalling that Axel Rudakubana’s headteacher was accused of racially profiling ‘a black boy with a knife’ when she labelled the future killer as ‘sinister’. Anti-racism like this kills, and the government wants more of it.

Universities aren’t safe either. The state is going to produce a ‘Cohesion Charter’ which will be ‘tackling extremism’ as well as define ‘principles relating to civic participation, environmental responsibility, and other areas’. We are told that ‘once agreed, universities will be strongly encouraged to incorporate the principles into their own student codes of conduct’, meaning that students will face sanction or expulsion if they express the wrong ideas.

Many parents, especially those who have more robust views on migration, climate change, multiculturalism or any other government policies may find themselves considering other options. Private schooling is increasingly unaffordable, especially after Labour introduced VAT on school fees, resulting in 13,000 children leaving private education. Another option is homeschooling, which the government calls ‘elective home education’. This is growing, with 126,000 children homeschooled during the Autumn 2025 term, up 14,300 on the previous year. It is popular with parents whose children struggle in mainstream schools, those who know they can do a better job than a struggling, violent state school, and those who wish to teach their children their own values, not the state’s.

Now the government has homeschooling in its sights. They will create ‘local authority registers of children not in school’ and require ‘local authority consent before the most vulnerable children can be withdrawn from school for home education.’

The Spectator: continue reading

The government’s new integration and extremism policy exposes a regime in denial

DAVID SHIPLEY

The government’s new policy paper on integration and extremism, Protecting What Matters: Towards a more confident, cohesive, and resilient United Kingdom is one of the most fascinating, and wicked documents produced by the British state in many years. At times it is entirely deluded or misleading, at others shockingly honest, before veering into lurid paranoia.

It reveals a regime that has accepted the failure of multicultural Britain, while still being in denial about the reasons for that failure to such an extent that it ignores or denies material reality. The paper also shows how the state plans, or at least hopes, to manage the harm and decline it has created through decades of policy. It introduces the long-threatened “anti-Muslim hostility” code, and seeks to redefine simple words like “patriot” and “English” out of all recognition. Everyone should read it — especially those who want to understand how those who rule us think and what they want to do. 

What you’ll discover when you do read it is also a document which is almost unbelievably poorly written. It is full of typos, including in the first line, and a misspelling of “England” in the section about improving education. The paper’s tone also veers wildly, notably between the forewords from the Prime Minister and Steve Reed, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary, and the Executive Summary which immediately follows. All of it feels as though it has gone through heavy and repeated edits by different authors which were only completed very shortly before publication. Perhaps, this reflects tension within the state over how honest it can be.

Starmer’s foreword is particularly bizarre. In echoes of the “envy of the world” mantra endlessly repeated over an increasingly degraded NHS, the PM tell us that “the ease with which people of different cultures and races live side-by-side in our diverse democracy is both envied and feared around the globe”. This is only somewhat less absurd than claiming that the world envies the Afghan tourism industry.

The examples Starmer provides to demonstrate Britain’s success are the fact that “inter-faith marriages” exist and we have “religious freedom”. He can’t, surely, believe this nonsense, not least because the next section of the document states that social cohesion in the UK is under strain, with “trust in institutions…declining [and] tensions between communities…worsening”. Further on we read that “the risks are clear: more unrest on UK streets, [and] more people being radicalised towards extreme viewpoints”. Is this really envied across the world?

Starmer’s weak examples give the game away, as does the retreat in rhetoric compared with earlier reports. As Laurie Wastell observed, the 2024 Khan Review stated that “Britain’s most precious asset is our diverse and cohesive democracy”. Two years later, the best Starmer can do is assert that “by any fair standard, Britain can be proud about of [sic] its approach to social cohesion”, an approach which he tells us he intends to renew, despite its evident failure. In Starmer’s world the outcomes aren’t important. What matters is that our approach is “against the force of cohesion”. 

The Prime Minister then moves on to patriotism. For Starmer “patriotic pride is … a collective act of community-building that is totally opposed to exclusion and those who seek to divide us”. This is utter nonsense. To be a patriot is to have a love for one’s own country, holding its interests above those of others. It is inherently, albeit not necessarily aggressively, divisive.

Starmer draws his own distinction, of course. On one side are those who accept his vision, and on the other “those who seek to divide us”. This theme is taken up Steve Reed in his foreword. The Secretary of State tells us exactly what Labour’s patriotism means:

This is our expression of real patriotism. A pride which is hopeful about the future for people’s communities and the country, not pining for some imagined past. Open to all those who call these islands home, regardless of the colour of their skin.

Reed goes on to explain who this patriotism isn’t open to:

We also know that people around the country are already conducting acts of service to their community and their country – from litter picking to volunteering teaching English to serving in our armed forces. Those people might not be as loud as those who seek to divide us but they are far greater in number. It is those people, who have already chosen to come together to make their country and their community better, that we are backing up. Our patriotism is being on their side.

He then goes even further, defining those ‘who want to divide us’ as threats to the nation:

Our first duty as a government is to protect our country. That means uniting those of us who are proud of the UK together in pursuit of a safer, stronger more prosperous country against those hostile actors who want to divide us.

Do as you are told, mouth platitudes about integration, conduct government-approved “acts of service”, and you will be protected by the state’s “patriotism”. Reject multiculturalism, or argue that mass migration is harming us, then you are a ‘hostile actor’ who this government believes it has a ‘duty’ to protect the country from. This is the denialism of someone who would blame a doctor for their diagnosis — giving one the sense of a crumbling, paranoid regime desperately looking for someone to blame rather than considering the material conditions which are causing the decay of order in Britain. At one point Reed seems to come close to understanding, noting that:

Economic shocks, austerity, technological change, demographic changes and a rise in extremism have each made people feel as if they have lost a sense of control over their lives, their country and their community.

What’s fascinating about this is that he correctly lists a number of major reasons that the country is less cohesive, less secure and less safe, before dismissing the results as something people merely “feel”.

This rejection of reality is present elsewhere in the paper, which tells us that asylum hotels “have been a focal point of community tensions in certain areas of the country, leaving residents worried about the consequences for crime and public safety”. The people writing these words must know that there have been numerous sexual and violent crimes committed by asylum seekers staying in places such as this. The “worries” are a response to what has actually happened.

Meanwhile, though, the paper is happy to blame other foreigners, claiming at various times that “malign foreign influence”, “malign foreign actors” and “hostile states” — “particularly Russia” — are responsible for “tensions”, “violence”, and “exploiting people’s frustrations and concerns”. Perhaps it really is safer and easier to blame foreigners than to accept the failure of decades of policy.

There are hints, reading the paper, of an original, much more honest draft by an earlier author. One which admits the failure of multiculturalism, and doesn’t seek to blame people’s feelings or foreigners. That voice tells us that the grave challenges facing Britain “require a deliberate, clear-eyed and resolute response”. 

What the state has to offer is nothing of the sort. Its plan to prevent inter-ethnic conflict and an increasingly disunited kingdom is hollow. The anti-Muslim hostility code, and money for a charity dedicated to generating reports of anti-Muslim hate, are balanced with efforts to prevent Islamists and jihadists from infiltrating the charity and education sectors. Other than this, the state intends to hand out pots of cash to local communities and fund opaque institutions like the “Common Ground Resilience Fund”, a “cross-government Cohesion Support and Interventions Function”, an “Advisory Board” to help with tensions, and a new “Social Cohesion Measurement Framework”. That should do it.

The vision seems eerily similar to that Northern Ireland in the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement. Pay off the different communities to pacify them, keep up the counter-terrorism policing, and hope that large-scale violence can be avoided. Yet in the end, Protecting What Matters accepts defeat. Now, even those who claim to favour multiculturalism recognise it tends to be a problem to be managed, not the strength they have so long claimed.

---

This article (Protecting what matters) was created and published by The Critic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author David Shipley

 

••••

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.