Robert Jenrick the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice is better than many others in his party on the big issues of the day such as migration and integration. Looking at what he says makes me wonder whether the Tory party members made a big mistake by choosing Kemi Badenoch over Mr Jenrick as leader. He’s recently published an article on X that echoes what many Britons feel about Britain’s problems with excessive levels and inappropriate types of migration and the destructive effects of ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ policies. Like Mr Jenrick I grew up in an area similar to Mir Jenrick’s one in the Black Country of the UK Midlands but in my case it was East London. I also saw the deep working class patriotism that once existed there and I’ve also seen that working class Britain-loving culture destroyed by migration and policies that sideline and demean this class. I agree with Mr Jenrick that it’s pointless to talk about integration in some of the areas that have been colonised by migrants as there is little or no native culture in many of these areas to integrate into. The London Borough of Newham for example where I lived for a while when I was much younger is now a place where today just 15% of the population is traditional Britons with the bulk of the replacement population being Islamic.

I’m very pleased to see Mr Jenrick name and describe the problems that are afflicting Britain and Britons. He’s been far more honest than some politicians regarding this matter. The problem for me is that because the former Tory leader David (now Lord) Cameron allowed so many people into the party who were basically Lib Dems wearing a blue rosette, Mr Jenrick’s views are unlikely to gain much traction in either the Tory Parliamentary party or among the dominant cadre of centrist Tory party activists. At present Mr Jenrick’s words, although accurate and honest about the state we are in, look too much like the empty pabulum that Tories have fed their potential voters for decades regarding migration. The Tories continually say they are going to deal with this problem but inevitably make the migration problems worse. I cannot forgive or forget Boris Johnson for having a policy of closing the pubs whilst propping the doors of the country wide open during Covid and even if there was a miracle and Mr Jenrick suddenly became Tory leader, I am cynical that he would be able to get his party to do what needs to be done to reduce migration and put British people first.

Here’s Mr Jenrick’s excellent piece which can be found on the X platform HERE.

I was brought up in the Black Country by parents who possessed a deep English working-class patriotism. That sense of national togetherness is now being torn to shreds as unprecedented levels of mass migration transform parts of our country beyond recognition.

The disorienting rate of change is rarely discussed by our media elite, so the numbers bear repeating. According to ONS census data, in central Bradford 50 per cent of people were born outside of the UK. In central Luton 46 per cent of all residents arrived in the past decade. Between 2001 and 2021 the proportion of the white British population in Dagenham fell by 51 per cent; in Slough by 35 per cent; and in Peterborough by 27 per cent.

There is no historical precedent – or democratic mandate – for this. Contrary to popular myth, the UK’s demographics have remained remarkably stable for most of our island story. Yes, we have experienced waves of migration, for instance the Huguenots in the late 17th century, but we are not, like our American friends, a nation of immigrants. Stability has served us well. It enabled a high-trust, cohesive society with a unifying national identity.

Few in Westminster dare acknowledge what is happening. They see the success stories – for instance, the politicians from immigrant backgrounds who have risen to the top of Government – which distorts their perceptions. They reap the benefits of mass migration and are wealthy enough to avoid the costs ordinary Brits face in their daily lives. In 2016 it was found that there are 416 schools where 50 per cent or more pupils are from Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic backgrounds.

How many politicians send their children to those schools? If they left their ivory towers, they would see a very different picture – one where mass migration has led to fractured cities, isolated communities, and growing sectarianism.

What I saw recently in Handsworth, Birmingham showed just how far things have declined. Palestinian flags fluttered on lampposts; the Union Flag or St George’s Cross couldn’t be seen. Men outnumbered women on the street, shop signs and posters were emblazoned in foreign languages (with 1 in 7 unable to speak English well) and over half of the population are out of work. In this ward 45 per cent of the population were not born in Britain and 92 per cent are ethnic minorities.

This is not the diversity liberals celebrate as “enriching”, but a monolithic block of first, second and third generation migrants living culturally divergent lives. It’s impossible to integrate areas like this, as the host society is absent.

I challenge even the most devoted pro-migration campaigners to visit and describe it as a success story. It is anything but. Out of sight, the shameful failures of mass migration are even more concerning. Cousin marriage remains common among some South Asian minorities, with the most recent data showing that in three inner-city Bradford wards almost half of mothers from the Pakistani community were married to a first or second cousin. There are an estimated 85 Sharia Councils across the country – we simply do not know the full details, other than that they are growing in number. This is despite reports that many of these Councils condone wife-beating, and ignore marital rape and forced marriage. That is a stain on our country that should anger us all.

We have imported ethnic and religious tensions, meaning that conflicts on the other side of the world play out on Britain’s streets. In 2023, for instance, four police officers were injured after tensions in the Eritrean community led to clashes. We cannot accept that as normal. A nation without a common language or cultural reference points to bind people together ceases to be a nation.

In the UK today nearly a million people can’t speak English or can’t speak it well – a situation made worse by government translation services that allow people to get by without it. Successive governments have rightly been criticised for failing to prevent this.

In honesty, there hasn’t really been an integration policy worthy of the name. Cowardly politicians have turned a blind eye and allowed problems to fester. Often they’ve made it worse. Instead of encouraging assimilation, the British state has enforced differences through state-sponsored DEI. Rather than demand immigrants buy into the values, customs, and institutions that attracted them here in the first place, we have tolerated unacceptable practices that offend the British way of life.

Most appallingly of all, the British state has bungled programmes like Prevent which are designed to counter the biggest failures of integration, misallocating resources away from Islamist extremism. A decade ago, in an independent review into integration, Baroness Casey gave a clarion call for change. But not one of her recommendations mentioned the need to end mass migration. The truth is it’s impossible to absorb the number of people coming into the country and retain a strong sense of national identity.

On current trends, by 2050 as many as one in three of the UK population will have been born abroad. Like those who have come before, most of them will settle in urban centres, exacerbating our ongoing challenges. How can we possibly hope to integrate new arrivals into our way of life if there is nothing to integrate into?

That is why we desperately need to end mass migration. I resigned from the previous Government after I couldn’t secure any more reductions. The need for those changes are more urgent than ever. In Casey’s report she mounted a spirited defence of so-called “British values” (which are, in reality, common Western values) like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and respect for one another.

But only tackling extreme behaviour is a low bar for an integration strategy. We must aspire for more. I want to raise my children, as my parents did, in a country bound by a strong sense of national community, shared customs and tradition, and pride in our history, landscape and literature. One in which people, regardless of their skin colour or faith, live side by side, never ghettoised. It will not be the Britain of yesteryear; however it can still have what Roger Scruton called a love of home.

At an event last week in the Midlands a man rose to ask me a question. He said he was a proud British Sikh, but then corrected himself and said he was, above all, proudly British. He went on to make a powerful speech for a more united country. He called for an end to religious prayers on our streets – explaining there are no shortages of mosques, gurdwaras, and temples – and despaired at the multitude of business groups he was invited to in the West Midlands which divide people by skin colour or faith. “I am Sikh and a businessman”, he said. “I do not need a Sikh business association to express my views”. He ended by saying, in reference to the foreign flags flying in his neighbourhood that for him, “the Union Flag is the flag I live under and am loyal to, not the Palestinian flag.”

Have pride in Britain he said. A standing ovation followed. We must capture his spirit, and make ourselves one country, under one flag.