As humans we have evolved to fight and survive, but when you take away the need to fight and all of your survival instincts have been catered for, what do you do? You find a new opponent to fight, no matter how small, and your survival instincts turn into neuroticism; going into overdrive to see monsters in the dark where there are none. Also take into consideration that family, relationships and community have also broken down which has accelerated this stage because people have no sense of belonging anymore so they go out searching for it in other places; this is why identity politics is so prevalent. Today, there are almost no working-class Labour MPs in parliament; the party has been taken over by graduates. Political careerists, people who have only ever worked in politics, are now the largest single group in Westminster. What has caused the recent seismic changes in British politics, including Brexit and a series of populist revolts against the elite? Why did so many people want to overturn the status quo? Where have the Left gone wrong? And what deeper trends are driving these changes? I found this to be a fascinating and determinedly objective analysis of the changing political alignments in Britain today. It examines the widening gulf between the ‘new elite (typically liberal progressive graduates with left leaning views)that runs the country and its institutions and the ‘Traditionalist’ majority (mostly non-graduate, patriotic, culturally conservative). It charts the rise of this new elite over the past 60 years as they supplanted the old land owning, aristocratic elite of the previous era.

Goodwin is a former senior fellow for the think tank UK in a Changing Europe, and was the founding director of the Centre for UK Prosperity within the Legatum Institute. [9] [10] In Values, Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics, Matthew Goodwin claims that recent upheavals in British society (like Brexit) have emerged in response to the rise of a liberalised, globalised ruling class, or “new elite.” Goodwin’s emphasis on “culture wars” over empirical evidence fails to convince Vladimir Bortun. A couple of thoughts: the 18-24 generation is too influenced by the internet and yet to make important life decisions which affect other people (such as raising a family). I have also read that that age group is more easily scammed due to too much trust of the internet. Matthew Goodwin is Professor of Politics at the University of Kent. His new book, Values, Voice and Virtue: The New British Politics, is out on March 30. One of the other features of this definition of a new elite is how easily it can flex to accommodate the politics of those it needs to include: so Jeremy Corbyn is a member, and Boris Johnson is not. To explain this, Goodwin says that “most of all, they are defined by their very liberal if not radical ‘woke’ values”. So if you’re a rich, prestigiously educated Londoner but you don’t like footballers taking the knee, you’re probably not part of this “new governing class”.

Select a format:

Gerry Hassan: Matthew Goodwin's take on the current state of Britain is flawed". The National. 2023-04-11 . Retrieved 2023-07-12. People in all kinds of elite have a tendency to downplay their privileges,” said Savage. “My point would be: separate out what they say from the sociological truth. So when Liz Truss emphasises that she went to a comprehensive school [where she said children were ‘let down’] but it turns out to have been very good, we should interrogate that.” Shouldn’t social scientists welcome this kind of critical interrogation and debate? Isn’t history a science to be rewritten in the light of new evidence and arguments? Hassan, Gerry (14 May 2023). "It's time for a long and hard look at the state of the UK's democracy". The National . Retrieved 21 August 2023. Surely we should treasure more what we share as members of a diverse community rather than seek to silo people and segregate that community into ghettos based on our racial identities, sexual orientation, age, gender or creed?

In my new book, I refer to these divides as values, voice and virtue, and argue that whichever party gets on the right side of them will dominate British politics in the years ahead.

Retailers:

Woke ideology is the very antithesis of the principles of universalism – this fixation with identity politics suggests what differentiates us is more important than what we have in common. This is not to deny the presence of what we might call the ‘old elite’ – a right-leaning, wealthy, privileged and heavily interconnected group which still wields enormous economic power in Britain. It’s merely to point out that, today, whether we look at politics, the media, the creative industries, cultural institutions or schools and universities, we can see that the axis of power is now rapidly tilting away from that old elite and toward a new successor class. Generally agree, but the Tories can surely see the electoral value in letting Labour (and Lib Dem) wokeness keep surfacing – which further alienates them both from the majority non-woke electorate.

By contrast, the “traditional values” displayed by conservatives are presented as almost natural, despite the vast literature showing how notions such as “national identity” or “whiteness” may be constructed in a top-down way that benefits the elite. Goodwin’s argumentation bears another contradiction: if the new elite imposes its progressive values on the rest of society, was that not the case also with the old elite and its traditionalist values? Indeed, Goodwin fails to explain what exactly is wrong with questioning received knowledge about the past, the Empire, British identity etc. Shouldn’t social scientists welcome this kind of critical interrogation and debate? Isn’t history a science to be rewritten in the light of new evidence and arguments?

Kenan Malik wrote that Goodwin's argument that members of what he portrays as the "new elite", including Gary Lineker, Mehdi Hasan and Sam Freedman, shape people's lives more than figures such as Rishi Sunak or Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England "is, to put it politely, stretching credulity". [8] Similarly, Vladimir Bortun wrote that Goodwin "fails to demonstrate that the people occupying the most influential positions in British economic and political spheres share a “radically progressive” outlook." [9] Matthew D'Ancona asked "Are Hugh Grant and Emma Watson really running Britain into the ground?", arguing "Maybe it helps the populist right and their cheerleaders to believe such nonsense." [10] Malik asserted that it was plausible that "Goodwin himself shapes public debate more than most of the "new elite" to whom he points". [8] Sunder Katwala suggested that Goodwin employs evidence selectively and argued that "The wish to rebut one-dimensional caricatures of the Leave tribe is a valid one, but Goodwin is not above dishing out caricatures of the other half of the country all the same." [11] Archie Bland has written that when critics point out that those in positions of political power have actively pursued the type of "anti-woke" politics that Goodwin approves of, "Goodwin and his allies argue that these developments are all part of a rearguard action to defend traditional values against an agenda driven by a shadowy minority" and that disagreement with this view is portrayed as "simply proof of their original thesis: that the new elite is out of touch." [12]

We welcome applications to contribute to UnHerd – please fill out the form below including examples of your previously published work. Members of the New Elite really do hold enormous influence over the national conversation – by defining concepts, determining speech codes, shaping social norms, prioritising voices and determining which values are considered legitimate. All of which helps to explain why, even as Britain has moved rightwards economically, it has moved leftwards culturally. At the same time, members of the New Elite also continually disavow their own influence. Indeed, they are very fond of portraying themselves as oppressed underdogs who actually have no power at all.

This group “creates, filters and determines what is or what is not acceptable or desirable within the national conversation”, Goodwin writes. “The new elite watched the prevailing culture be completely reshaped around their far more socially liberal values, tastes, political priorities, and interests.”