Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The “English not British” split will help decide the next election – we must talk about it

Evolving English identity has already made its mark on the Brexit referendum.

English taxpayers may only now be realising that they will foot the estimated £1.5bn dowry for Theresa May’s civil partnership with the DUP, while England’s austerity will continue largely unchanged. They could be forgiven for asking “who elected the DUP to decide England’s future?” 

A similar question hung over the 2015 election, when giant posters of Ed Miliband in Alex Salmond’s pocket aimed to bring voters frightened of SNP influence behind a Conservative majority.

Two successive elections have cast the spotlight on the influence of parties from non-English parts of the union. This arises from the political dynamics in each nation: elections are fought largely by different parties, are about different issues, and each nation has a different winner. Both Labour and the Conservatives have regained some ground in Scotland, but the Scottish contest was distinct and can hardly be taken as a return to “normal British” politics. Brexit hung over the whole election, but some of the most controversial Conservative policies on social care and school funding were English-only issues.

Most English residents don’t spend their lives bridling at England’s governance and place within the union. But when asked, they are not happy. Over a decade ago they reached a settled view that the Barnett formula for distributing UK resources was unfair, and that Scottish MPs should not vote on English legislation.

The political system is slowly absorbing the gentle insistence that England has issues distinct from those of Britain. The Conservative government introduced a mild form of English Votes for English Laws (EVEL). For the first time, Labour’s 2017 manifesto recognised a political identity for England, promising a ‘Minister for England’ and a constitutional convention that would deliver a “relationship of equals” between England and the devolved nations. The immediate prospect of a second Scottish referendum may have disappeared, but England’s case for recognition is acquiring some momentum of its own.

But within England, the most recent (of several) attempts to shift power and resources from Whitehall to local areas seems to be losing momentum. Although the official line is that devolution to mayoral combined authorities is going ahead, the crucial personal engagement and drive of ministers is less apparent, and key legislation to devolve business rates was missing from the Queen’s Speech. There is little public support for reviving Labour’s abandoned elected regional assemblies. There is much more support for local decisions to be taken closer to home and for stronger local councils, although people also don’t want different standards of public service in different places. Real public support for devolution may depend on decentralisers showing that local control can reduce, not increase, postcode lotteries.

It’s hard to argue that England faces a constitutional crisis, but it’s equally difficult to believe that England’s relationship with the rest of the union will remain unchanged or that London’s dominance of England will simply continue as it is. This is the background to the British Academy conference whch will examine the successes and failures of devolution to the regions, cities and counties, and the evolution of English political identities. 

Following the recent election of metro-mayors in six English city-regions, the conference will also investigate the impact of devolution on Whitehall, the future of the political parties in England and the changing nature of the UK parliament at Westminster.

It was England that delivered the Brexit vote and, within England, it was those voters who felt most strongly English who opted most heavily for Leave. In England, those who identify themselves as British mainly backed Remain.

The divergent political choices of the “more English” and the “more British” have been growing for some time. Back in the Labour landslide of 2001, the party’s support hardly varied by English or British identity. By 2015, Labour came third among the “English not British”, well behind UKIP and the Conservatives, only recovering to a limited extent this year. Conservative activists who identify as “English” have a much more negative view of the union than their “British” party colleagues in England.

Significant though these trends seem to be, their real influence is not clear. Some of the most intensely English are also the most intensely British: patriots twice over. It isn't just those who identify themselves as English who have a strong interest in how England is governed. And while identity maps to some extent against age, class and education (the other markers of England’s cultural divide), there are plenty of liberal English people and socially conservative British.

For politicians, the practical challenge may simply be one of showing respect. We all want our identities to be recognised. For a long time, the English have heard few people speaking to them. The EU referendum might have been closer if the Remain campaign had also been “England Stronger in Europe”: England was the only UK nation where the campaign only spoke of Britain being stronger in Europe.

Whenever it comes, the next election will be decided in large-town and small-city England, places that are on the cusp of the clash of social values. In these places, it may be important to be able to talk about England’s future, not just that of Britain. 

The British Academy conference, “Governing England: Devolution and Identity in England” sponsored by the Carnegie Trust, will take place on 5 July

John Denham was a Labour MP from 1992 to 2015, and a Secretary of State 2007 to 2010. He is Director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at Winchester University

Spudgun67 via Creative Commons/
Show Hide image

It might be a pseudo science, but students take the threat of eugenics seriously

Today’s white nationalists and neo-Nazis make extensive use of racist pseudo-science to bolster their political arguments.

In January, the London Student published my investigation, which showed that the controversial columnist Toby Young attended the London Conference on Intelligence, secretly held at University College London. Shortly afterwards, I mentioned to someone in a pub smoking area that I go to UCL. “Did you hear about the eugenics conference?” he asked me.

He was an international student from Africa. “I applied to UCL partly because I thought it was safer than other universities, but now I’m not so sure. I worry about how many other professors hold the same opinions.”

A protest outside the UCL Provost’s office after the article was published attracted scores of students. “I have a right to come to university and not fear for my safety,” one told the crowd, exasperated. “Nothing has been done, and that’s what really scares me.”

While hecklers derided the protest as an overreaction, students have good reason for taking eugenics seriously. UCL has a long history of support for scientific racism, beginning with Francis Galton, the Victorian polymath who, among other achievements, founded the science of eugenics. UCL’s Galton Chair in National Eugenics, which survived under that name until 1996, was first held by Karl Pearson, another ardent racial eugenicist. Pearson talked about creating a nation from “the better stocks” while conducting war with the “inferior races”, and in 1925 co-authored an article published in the Annals of Eugenics warning of the dangers of allowing Russian and Polish Jewish children into Britain. The London Conference on Intelligence was held in a building named in Pearson’s honour.

Eugenics is most closely associated in the popular imagination with fascism, and the twisted ideology of the Nazi party. Yet racial eugenics was closely linked to wider European imperialism, as illustrated by one object in the Galton collection, contributed by Pearson. Dr. Eugene Fischer’s hair colour scale is a selection of 30 different synthetic hair varieties in a tin box, a continuous scale from European to African. Fischer’s work was used in the early 20th century by Germany to ascertain the whiteness of Namibia’s mixed-race population, even before it was used by the Nazis to design the Nuremburg Laws. In apartheid South Africa, Afrikaans researchers used his tools as late as the 1960s.

Its importance to the imperial project meant that eugenics enjoyed widespread support in British scientific and political establishments. Galton’s Eugenics Society, set up to spread eugenicist ideas and push for eugenic policies, had branches in Birmingham, Liverpool, Cambridge, Manchester, Southampton and Glasgow, drawing hundreds of academics to their meetings. It was a movement of the educated middle class, including leading progressives such as John Maynard Keynes, Marie Stopes and the Fabians. Society presidents hailed from the universities of Edinburgh, Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, and UCL.

With this history in mind, it is easier to understand why students take the UCL eugenics scandal so seriously. Science journalist Angela Saini, who has been researching the history of race science for her upcoming book, argues that the problem lies in the co-opting of pseudoscience for political purposes. “These people are on the fringes, they’re not respected in mainstream academia,” she says. “The problem is when people like Toby Young come in from outside and use these studies to promote their own political agenda.” (Young said he attended the conference purely for research).

The rise of the far-right in Europe and America also means that the tolerance afforded to racist pseudoscience is not a purely academic question. Today’s white nationalists and neo-Nazis make extensive use of racist pseudoscience to bolster their political arguments.

Our investigation into the London Conference on Intelligence uncovered the involvement of at least 40 academics from at least 29 different universities in 15 different countries. Among these was the Oxford academic Noah Carl, a postdoctoral researcher in the social sciences at Nuffield College, who has spoken twice at the London Conference on Intelligence. Carl has also written several papers for Emil Kirkegaard’s OpenPsych, which include two looking at whether larger Muslim populations make Islamist terrorism more likely, and one suggesting that British stereotypes towards immigrants are “largely accurate”.

One external reviewer responded to the last paper by stating that: “It is never OK to publish research this bad, even in an inconsequential online journal.” Nevertheless, the paper was featured by conservative US website The Daily Caller, under a picture of Nigel Farage’s “Breaking Point” poster. The far right European Free West Media cited the paper to claim that “criminal elements are represented by certain ethnic groups”, and on the blog of a far-right French presidential candidate under the headline “Study validates prejudices”. It even ended up on InfoWars, one of the most popular news websites in the USA, and can be found circulating on far-right corners of Reddit. The fact that Carl is linked to Oxford University was mentioned frequently in the coverage, providing legitimacy to the political opinions presented.

Another contributor to the London Conference on Intelligence was Adam Perkins of King’s College London, whose book The Welfare Trait proposed that “aggressive, rule-breaking and anti-social personality characteristics” can be “bred out” of society by reducing child support for those on the lowest incomes. Perkins actively engaged with far-right media outlets in promoting his book, appearing in hour-long interviews with Stefan Molyneux and Tara McCarthy. Molyneux doesn’t “view humanity as a single species because we are not all the same”, and argues that “ordinary Africans were better off under colonialism”. McCarthy was banned from YouTube for alleging a conspiracy to commit “white genocide”, and supports deporting naturalised citizens and “killing them if they resist”. Perkins himself attracted criticism last year for tweeting, alongside data from Kirkegaard, that Trump’s Muslim ban “makes sense in human capital terms”.

Perkins is not the first KCL academic to use his platform to promote contested science in the far-right press. In the 1980s, the Pioneer Fund supported the work of Hans Eysenck, whose work has been credited by his biographer with helping to “revive the confidence” of “right-wing racialist groups” such as the National Front by providing an “unexpected vindication from a respectable scientific quarter”. The original mandate of the Pioneer Fund was the pursuit of “race betterment”; it is considered a hate group by the US civil rights group the Southern Poverty Law Center. KCL did not respond to a request for comment.

An association with a high profile university can help bigots to legitimise their beliefs, but the infiltration of mainstream academia by eugenicists is even more complex than this.

After we exposed his involvement with eugenicists, Toby Young pointed out that the conference at which he actually spoke, that of the International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR), was “super-respectable” and attended by “numerous world-renowned academics”.

He is entirely correct. The ISIR is home to many great scientists, and its journal Intelligence is one of the most respected in its field. Yet Richard Lynn, who has called for the “phasing out” of the “populations of incompetent cultures”, serves on the editorial board of Intelligence, along with fellow director of the Pioneer Fund Gerhard Meisenberg, who edits Lynn’s journal Mankind Quarterly. Two other board members are Heiner Rindermann and Jan te Nijenhuis, frequent contributors to Mankind Quarterly and the London Conference on Intelligence. Rindermann, James Thompson, Michael Woodley of Menie and Aurelio Figueredo, all heavily implicated in the London Conference on Intelligencehelped to organise recent ISIR conferences. Linda Gottfredson, a Pioneer Fund grantee and former president of the ISIR, famously authored a letter in the Wall Street Journal defending Charles Murray’s assertion that black people are genetically disposed to an average IQ of “around 85”, compared to 100 for whites.

The tolerance afforded to eugenicists threatens the reputation of respectable scientists. Stephen Pinker, the world-renowned cognitive psychologist, spoke at last year’s ISIR conference. Another speaker at the conference, however, was the aforementioned Emil Kirkegaard, a “self-taught” eugenicist who has written a “thought experiment” which discusses whether raping a drugged child could be defended, and whose research into OKCupid made international headlines for its “grossly unprofessional, unethical and reprehensible” use of personal data.

Saini spoke to Richard Haier, editor-in-chief of Intelligence, about the involvement of Lynn and Meisenberg. “He defended their involvement on the basis of academic freedom,” she recalled. “He said he’d prefer to let the papers and data speak for themselves.”

Publishing well-researched papers that happen to be written by eugenicists is one thing, but putting them in positions of editorial control is quite another. “Having researched Lynn and Meisenberg, I fail to understand how Intelligence can justify having these two on the editorial board,” Saini said. “I find that very difficult to understand. Academic freedom does not require that these people are given any more space than their research demands – which for a discredited idea like racial eugenics is frankly minuscule.” I contacted the ISIR but at time of publishing had received no response.

UCL has published several statements about the London Conference on Intelligence since my investigation. In the latest, released on 18 January 2018, the university said it hoped to finish an investigation within weeks. It said it did not and had not endorsed the conference, and had formally complained to YouTube about the use of a doctored UCL logo on videos posted online. UCL’s President described eugenics as “complete nonsense” and added: “I am appalled by the concept of white supremacy and will not tolerate anything on campus that incites racial hatred or violence.” UCL management has also agreed to engage with students concerned about buildings being named after eugenicists.

UCL’s statement also stressed its obligation “to protect free speech on campus, within the law, even if the views expressed are inconsistent with the values and views of UCL”.

Yet there is a direct link between the tolerance of eugenicists in academia and the political rise of the far-right. Journals and universities that allow their reputations to be used to launder or legitimate racist pseudo-science bear responsibility when that pseudo-science is used for political ends. As one UCL student put it: “This is not about freedom of speech – all violence begins with ideas. We feel threatened, and we want answers.”

Ben van der Merwe is a student journalist.