This question is often avoided, perhaps because some conservatives lack the courage to address it or because the concept of self-determination has gradually faded from public consciousness. Nevertheless, it is still a significant question that needs more attention.
Individualism and self-determination share many similarities when it comes to personal freedoms. These include an individual’s right to decide about their own life, pursue their goals, and shape their destiny according to their values and aspirations.
Individualism often advocates for limited government intervention, emphasising the autonomy and sovereignty of the individual.
The difference, however, becomes clear when we look at how a collective obtains self-determination. The situation regarding self-determination among a group, such as a community or a nation, can get quite complex.
Collective self-determination covers a group’s entitlement to decide their political, economic, social, and cultural fate. This can include choices regarding governance, territorial limits, and safeguarding their cultural identity.
So when we look at the political landscape in the United Kingdom, for example, in England, because I am English, do we overemphasise individualism? And what are the consequences of neglecting the notion of collective self-determination?
For quite some time now, individualism has been the focal point for most politicians and academics in the Western world. While conservatives have historically aimed to balance collective responsibility and unity, their focus today is on personal freedom, particularly in free-market economics.
Liberal thought has adopted a more progressive approach, which has attracted many former Marxists to its ranks. This shift has resulted in the rise of identity politics, focusing primarily on social injustice and minority rights.
So what are the potential consequences for us, the English, Scottish, and Welsh people who make up the majority within our respective nations? One consequence has been the need for more representation on the issue of our collective well-being. This may be because it is easier to sell selfishness and personal freedom to the electorate rather than insist we have a particular responsibility to one another and our homeland.
Self-centeredness and progressive ideologies flourish in an environment where people’s collective identity and sense of community have been undermined. While some may argue that such erosion is not taking place, claiming that promoting diversity, inclusion, and personal economic liberty are all laudable objectives.
But let us look at the results of the last six decades and see if ordinary British men and women have benefitted from this radical social engineering. Let us take a look at the earnings and wealth gap. According to the Institute of Fiscal Studies (https://ifs.org.uk/articles/income-and-wealth-inequality-explained-5-charts#note1),
The evolution of the UK’s disposable household income inequality since 1961 can be divided into four phases. The first period lasted through the 1960s up until 1979 and saw income inequality remain broadly flat on most measures.
The second period, from 1979 to 1990, saw a significant increase in the 90:10 ratio and the share of income going to the top 1%. Following this, income inequality stabilised across most of the distribution until the Great Recession in 2008.
Since then, patterns of income inequality have changed little, with people experiencing low disposable income growth across the income distribution.
What about poverty? The IFS explains what relative poverty is and how it is measured. The most common measure is the proportion of people below 60% of the median household income.
The relative poverty rate increased during the 1980s and declined slowly since then. However, different groups had different experiences. Pensioners saw a drastic decline, children saw a modest decline, and working-age adults without children saw an increase until the financial crisis.
So, we must see some improvement in Income inequality. According to the IFS, The UK has experienced an increase in income inequality over the last 60 years, more than most OECD countries. Today, the UK income inequality level is high by international standards, with the disparity between high- and middle-income people setting it apart from many comparators.
We may find the benefits of this progressive revolution in asset ownership. Again, according to the IFS, The income of people across different income groups has remained stagnant over the years while asset prices have continued to increase, leading to a wider gap between the rungs on the wealth ladder.
It now takes around 16 years of typical full-time gross earnings to move from the middle to the top of the wealth distribution, which was ten years in 2008. The younger generation is less likely to get on the housing ladder, leading to a concentration of wealth among older people, while half of working-age adults are renting.
Some of us are making conscious sacrifices so future generations can reap the rewards, which seems noble. Well, again, IFS says that the income growth for people born in recent decades is much less than that of their predecessors, threatening the previous norm of generation-on-generation increases in income levels.
For those born in the 1940s and 1950s, incomes typically doubled from their late 20s to their early 50s. However, those born in the 1960s only saw income grow by around 50% over that period, and those born more recently look set to see weaker growth still as they age.
This trend is making it harder to save one’s way up the wealth distribution, and there is an increasing threat to social mobility, especially regarding home ownership. The gap between homeownership rates among different income groups has never been more significant.
The concept of progressive individualism has brought about several adverse effects beyond personal economics, which cannot be ignored. The erosion of social cohesion, political polarisation, and economic instability are just a few of its negative consequences.
It is imperative to note that despite the touted benefits of mass immigration—both socially and economically—this perceived boon has not materialised. We need to address the fundamental imbalance between individual and collective rights before most of us lose any mechanism by which we can effect positive change.
Some will argue that rejoining the European Union will improve the situation. But given that this data spans six decades, the point is moot: you effectively offer the electorate the option to become poorer slower.
One way we can address this imbalance is to recognise the importance of reawakening our national consciousness and reclaiming our self-determination as a people. If we fail to do so, future generations may find themselves living in absolute servitude, cut off from their ethnic kin and robbed of the very homeland their forebearers built and sacrificed for.
This grim reality would result from a small number of individuals benefiting at the expense of the larger population. We must take the necessary steps to preserve our national identity and safeguard our cultural heritage to ensure a brighter future for future generations.
