Rafe Fletcher is the founder of CWG.

My memories of Japan are coloured by British triumphalism. In 2019, I was in Oita to see England thrash Australia in the Rugby World Cup. And last November, I saw Oasis play to a sell-out crowd in Tokyo.

Touring acts are more welcome than those putting down permanent roots. Japan’s foreign resident population is growing and, at four million, now constitutes around three percent of the population. They are readily identifiable in such an ethnically homogeneous country.

Japan’s new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who models herself on Britain’s own Iron Lady, won a landslide victory last month. She is pro-market and firm on immigration. But, as yet, her latter stance is heavier on rhetoric than policy. Because Japan is in a precarious position. How does it balance public demand to retain a clear national identity with the structural challenges of the world’s oldest population? Barring a sudden reproductive resurgence or a robotics revolution, foreign workers have to fix lopsided demographics.

Japan is an outlier because national identity is so intertwined with ethnicity. But the subject is nonetheless getting a bit more mainstream in Britain. Elon Musk recently swung behind Rupert Lowe’s splinter group Restore, because it takes predictions of a white British minority seriously. Nigel Farage’s caution about who that conversation encourages seemingly lost him the prospect of Musk’s backing.

Polite conversation avoids the topic because Britain’s demographic transformation was unplanned.

In 1945, Britain was almost as ethnically uniform as contemporary Japan. Politicians did not anticipate that post-war immigration from the Caribbean and South Asia would change that. It was then imagined as a temporary response to acute labour shortages. In 1956, debates in the House of Lords still referred to Commonwealth arrivals as “visitors”. The historian Colin Holmes notes that migrants largely shared that impression, writing in John Bull’s Island that they viewed themselves as “temporary labourers or sojourners…hoping to return home with needed capital.”

Social change was an unintended consequence of addressing economic needs. That does not make it inherently good or bad. But it suggests the country never really confronted what British identity meant once it could no longer be assumed. The familiarity of language and looks is easier to grasp than values when it comes to creating a sense of belonging.

That search for shared values is made harder by what Suella Braverman condemns as the “casual, anything-goes approach to culture and identity”. Nebulous catch-all appeals to “tolerance”, or worse, “diversity”, are flimsily ascribed as defining national characteristics. It lacks any active sense of participation. It undervalues Britain by negating any real commitment to it.

It’s here, of course, that I must go back to Asia to suggest a different way of doing things. In Singapore, my immigration status is made very apparent. There is little sensitivity in designating Employment Pass (EP) holders like me as “foreigner” in official correspondence. Singapore’s foreign population is substantial – constituting almost two million of its six million population – but clearly delineated. We are not part of the civic realm and have no access to state-funded services.

There is a route to deeper integration through Permanent Residency (PR). But there are strict qualifying criteria and even successful applicants do not gain permanent rights. PR holders must renew their status every five years. It can be revoked for criminal misconduct or a deemed lack of economic contribution. Increased civic status also comes with accompanying responsibilities. Most notably, your male offspring will be subject to compulsory National Service at 18.

Every year, around 25,000 PRs go one step further and obtain citizenship. There is no explicitly ethnic aspect to this. But it’s generally recognised that it follows founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s strategy of pursuing a certain demographic equilibrium. He pledged that Singapore would always be majority Chinese with smaller Malay and Indian minorities. New citizenships broadly preserve that balance.

Speaking at Imperial College in 2002, Lee argued that Britain’s lack of similar micromanagement breeds an ailing society. He said that importing workers without any plan for uniting races or cultures led to ghettoisation. Something that was evident only last week as the Greens won in Gorton and Denton by appealing to extranational affiliations in the Middle East.

But such technocratic planning is not possible in Britain. The Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood revealed in November that the previous government’s attempt to fill between 6,000 and 40,000 jobs in the health and care sector led to the arrival of 616,000 individuals between 2022 and 2024. If Britain is overshooting those targets by 1,400 percent, it is unlikely to fare too well with strategically planned quotas.

The more pertinent lesson lies in what Lee observes Britain has lost since 1945: “that quiet pride and self-confidence, that national cohesiveness that marked out the British people after victory in World War Two.”

It stems from insecurity in what being British really means. It is no longer something simply inherited nor is it anything easily articulated. Restoring confidence instead requires a sense of reciprocity. Singapore does this well in its prohibition of dual citizenship and enforcement of National Service. It forces citizens to actively participate and forego any other national loyalties.

Britain, by contrast, asks very little of its people. Even though it’s to my advantage, I’m always astonished at the treatment of Brits abroad. As Dubai expats discover now, we retain full access to state services without any of the onerous tax implications. Similarly, it allows its passport to be part of an international portfolio – somewhere to hedge your bets rather than commit.

And it offers few binding experiences to really bring an increasingly diverse population together. Unfortunately it came towards the back end of his premiership but a similar national service scheme was one of Sunak’s brighter ideas, particularly when university increasingly looks an imprudent bet.

Britain needs a more muscular vision of identity rooted in commitment. Pride cannot reside only in the vestiges of cultural triumphs abroad. It must inspire loyalty at home too.

In every constituency, there will be young people having to navigate the difficulties of growing up with this chronic illness. This is why Arthritis UK is bringing a young people’s art exhibition to Parliament next week to shine a light on their experiences so that they receive the recognition and care they deserve. 

Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) is a form of inflammatory arthritis diagnosed in people under the age of 16. Receiving a diagnosis at such a young age can be an overwhelming experience, and this disease impacts all stages of what can be considered a balanced and fair upbringing. 

For young people, having arthritis translates into missing school or playtime for medical appointments, having to learn complex medical terminology alongside completing homework, balancing fatigue with maintaining a healthy social life, and isolation proven to impact relationships and family planning.

Arthritis UK believes that the needs of young people living with arthritis have been neglected, leading to poor diagnosis and poor outcomes from a lack of support, and stigma. This World Young Rheumatic Disease Day (WORD Day) (18th March), the charity is calling on MPs to challenge the common misconception that arthritis is ‘just an old person’s disease’.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has a personal connection to the cause, often speaking about his own mother’s diagnosis of Still’s disease, which is a form of JIA. 

In the run-up to the WORD Day, Arthritis UK is proud to welcome just a fraction of the children and young people across the UK living with JIA into Parliament to celebrate the opening of an art exhibition, ‘Inside Arthritis’. The exhibition will be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall (9th to 12th March), and parliamentarians will have the chance to hear first-hand the very real challenges and needs of these young ambassadors. 

The artwork displayed in the exhibition has been sourced from Arthritis UK’s ‘Joint Creativity’ art programme. ‘Joint Creativity’ educates young people about the science behind their condition through fun and accessible mediums. These interactive sessions are an opportunity to connect with a community that understands the difficulties of growing up with a chronic illness, which can often be an isolating experience.

Arthritis can equally impact mental health as much as physical health, with a recent report from Arthritis UK, Left Waiting, Left Behind, revealing that one in four people living with arthritis experience anxiety most of or all the time.

Therefore, having a creative outlet can make understanding these processes less intimidating and encourage young people to feel in control of their condition.  

This is true for Penny, 14, from Kent, who lives with JIA and has been a longstanding art club attendee and said:

“Joint Creativity made me feel less alone because I was meeting other young people with JIA, talking with others who really understand because they are going through the same things.

“There’s still a misconception around JIA because people still think that arthritis is something that only affects older people. I think the fact younger people get it needs to be more well-known because that awareness would bring more understanding.”

Arthritis UK, the UK’s leading arthritis charity, works to ensure that all people living with arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions are cared for and represented. Whether that be through funding world-leading research, provision of health information to patients and professionals or through services, such as the Young People and Families Service. 

Deborah Alsina MBE, Arthritis UK’s Chief Executive, will be speaking at the opening event and looks forward to hearing the empowering young artists’ stories first hand.

Deborah said: “’Inside Arthritis’ is a great opportunity for parliamentarians to hear first-hand from young people about the stigma and challenges of living with arthritis.  

 

“Like the Prime Minister, many of us know someone living with arthritis, the resilience it requires and the knock-on impact it can have on quality of life and mental health. This is particularly acute for those affected earlier in life; one study has shown nearly 60 per cent of children and young people with Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis had or required mental health support.  

 

“Current polices and services do not adequately reflect the impact on both the individual, family and society. We hope that by hearing from our inspirational young people, parliamentarians will be inspired to help us advocate for greater change and, in doing so, tackle the misconception that arthritis is an older person’s disease.” 

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) forecasts for the economy. While it predicts annual real household income growth of 0.6%, this figure is skewed by high earners. The actual economic outlook shows why the ideology of neoliberalism (austerity, privatisation and deregulation) is collapsing.

Rachel Reeves ignores income disparity

The incomes of low earning people at the bottom 20% versus the top earning 20% shows why the OBR isn’t providing a complete analysis. The OBR calculates real household income growth through dividing total income by the population.

But in 2022, for example, the lower earning 20% received just £13,218 in average annual income. That’s compared to the top 20%, which received £83,687 – over 12 times more.

The issue is compounded by the increased earnings of CEOs. The High Pay Centre calculated that median CEO pay increased by 6.8% in 2024/25 – far higher than the 0.6% average predicted for each year until 2029 in the forecast.

Median FTSE 100 CEO pay increased from £4.29m in 2023/24 to £4.58m in 2024/25, the highest it ever has been.

Inflation

The OBR predicts inflation will fall from 3% in January to 2% at the end of 2026. Inflation impacts the real earnings increases for households. But neoliberalism means the privatisation of essentials, which is highly inflationary. If water, energy and other utilities were brought into public ownership it would mean lower costs for every person and business.

Take the UK agriculture sector. 40% of a farm’s total costs can be attributed to energy. Since privatisation of electricity began in 1990, average prices have more than doubled from around 6p per kwh (14p in 2023 prices) to 30p per kwh in 2023, according to Ofgem and Hansard figures. Meanwhile, analysis shows that average gas prices increased by 143% between 1992 and 2022.

When it comes to the food we eat everyday, over 60% is produced in the UK. These statistics demonstrate that that there could be a significant reduction in food prices through the nationalisation of energy. On top of that, all businesses would benefit from the democratisation of essentials through cheaper running costs. In fact, the government could mandate a national price drop throughout the economy via such public ownership of utilities.

This is not the possible negative impacts of deflation. Businesses would be earning the same via a national price drop through essentials nationalisation – prices would just be cheaper at a sustained level.

The end of neoliberal ideology through such public ownership, for example, would tackle the skewed figures in the OBR forecast and bring material improvements to people’s lives.

Featured image via the Canary

“we have very little to show for the repercussions of Sarah’s murder”