Robert Jenrick has said that ‘millions and millions’ of people in England are not ‘culturally or ethnically’ English as the identity row dividing the Right escalated.
Kemi Badenoch used her party conference speech on Wednesday to declare herself a ‘proud black Briton’ as she accused Reform of wanting to take the UK backwards with outdated views on race.
The Tory leader spoke out after her former Cabinet colleague Suella Braverman, who defected to Reform, started a row when she said that she did not consider herself to be English, despite being born in London.
And now Reform’s treasury spokesman has waded further into the row, saying ‘there is such a thing as English ethnicity’ and it is ‘perfectly normal’ to debate whether only white people can be English.
Mr Jenrick said: ‘We’ve ended up in a country where there are millions and millions of people who have a British passport in their bedroom drawer, but who are not culturally British by my standards, are not culturally English either, and are not ethnically English as well.
‘And that is a world away from this country as it was 50 years ago, certainly 100 years ago. And this debate is a perfectly normal one for us to be having.’
Meanwhile Mrs Badenoch won the surprise backing of Labour for her intervention on Englishness in her conference speech in Birmingham, with Wes Streeting expressing his ‘total support’ for the remarks.
The Defence Secretary said: ‘There are plenty of things where we have healthy disagreement, but there are some core values – the things that define us as a country – that are under attack and unity is strength.’
+3
View gallery
Robert Jenrick has waded into the row about identity, saying that ‘millions and millions’ of people in England are not ‘culturally or ethnically’ English
+3
View gallery
Kemi Badenoch during her speech on the final day of the Conservative Party conference. In the most impassioned part of her speech, the Tory leader accused Reform of wanting to take the UK backwards with outdated views on race
+3
View gallery
Mrs Badenoch with her husband Hamish who have three children. In her speech she said: ‘I don’t want to live in a country run by people who threaten journalists, call veterans traitors and debate whether my mixed-race children are English’
Mrs Badenoch said on Wednesday: ‘I don’t want to live in a country run by people who threaten journalists, call veterans traitors and debate whether my mixed-race children are English.
‘I don’t want to explain to my son when we’re watching our brilliant England team play football that some people don’t think our black players are English.’
The Tory leader added: ‘I don’t know whether you’ve noticed, but I am black. I am British.
‘I’m proud of my country, I’m proud of our history.
All that we have done, and all that we will do in the world.
‘Our best days are not behind us, and we will not let this country go backwards.’
Her intervention came after Mrs Braverman, Reform’s education spokeswoman, told BBC Question Time: ‘Of course I’m not English. I’m not an English person – I am of Asian origin.’ Her parents came from Mauritius and Kenya in the 1960s and she described herself as ‘British, of Asian ethnicity’.
Mr Jenrick went further in an interview with former GB News presenter Dan Wootton when asked about the debate among the Right over whether somebody who is not white can be English.
He said there were three aspects that define whether somebody is English, saying the first element was ethnicity as ‘there is such a thing as English ethnicity’.
Reform’s treasury spokesman said that English cultural identity – ‘somebody fully embracing of our history, our heritage, our language, our culture, our norms, our manners’ – and holding a British passport also define whether somebody is English.
He added: ‘Holding a passport does not mean that you are culturally English or British. And sadly, there are many, many people in this country who display that, and neither does it mean that you’re ethnically English either.’
Meanwhile other senior Reform figures appeared to be uncomfortable with the position of some of their colleagues on what it means to be English.
The party’s deputy leader Richard Tice repeatedly refused to say whether or not he questions Kemi Badenoch’s Englishness after her speech on Wednesday.
He said that ‘this whole Englishness debate is something we just haven’t got time for’, telling Times Radio: ‘I’m just not talking about it. I think it’s a complete waste of time.’
Britain Erupts in Fury! “Millions and Millions Aren’t English!” – Robert Jenrick’s Explosive Remarks Send Shockwaves Through Westminster
British politics has once again been drawn into a heated debate over immigration, national identity and what it means to be English. Robert Jenrick’s controversial remarks that “millions and millions aren’t English” have attracted considerable attention and provoked strong reactions across Westminster. The comments have reopened a sensitive national discussion about cultural identity, integration, citizenship and the changing character of British society. While some supporters argue that Jenrick is raising legitimate concerns about national identity and immigration policy, critics believe that his language risks creating divisions and questioning the belonging of people who are legally and socially part of Britain.
The controversy reflects a broader political environment in which immigration and national identity have become increasingly important issues. Over recent years, Britain has experienced significant demographic changes, with migration contributing to the growth of its multicultural communities. Cities such as London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leicester are home to people from a wide variety of ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds. For many residents, this diversity is an established feature of modern British life. However, the pace of demographic change has also generated political disagreements about integration, public services and national identity.
Jenrick’s remarks have therefore attracted attention because they touch on a fundamental question: what does it mean to be English? Is English identity primarily determined by ancestry, birthplace, citizenship, language, culture or a shared commitment to British institutions? These questions do not have simple answers, and different political groups approach them from very different perspectives.
Supporters of Jenrick’s position may argue that national identity should not be treated as an outdated concept. They believe that a country needs a shared sense of history, cultural traditions and common values to maintain social cohesion. From this perspective, discussing the relationship between immigration and national identity is a legitimate part of democratic debate. They may also argue that governments have a responsibility to ensure that immigration levels remain manageable and that newcomers have opportunities to integrate into British society.
However, critics argue that defining English identity too narrowly can exclude millions of people who consider England their home. A person may have parents or grandparents born overseas while having been born, educated and raised in England. Such individuals may speak English as their first language, participate in local communities and identify strongly with English culture. Questioning their national identity because of their ancestry could create a distinction between citizens that is difficult to justify in an inclusive democracy.
One of the most important aspects of the controversy is the distinction between ethnicity and nationality. Ethnicity generally refers to shared cultural, ancestral or historical characteristics, whereas nationality concerns a person’s legal or political relationship with a country. Although these concepts can overlap, they are not identical. A British citizen can have Nigerian, Indian, Pakistani, Caribbean or European ancestry while also identifying as English.
This distinction is particularly relevant in a country shaped by centuries of migration and cultural exchange. Modern England has been influenced by different communities, traditions and historical experiences. Immigration has contributed to the development of British business, healthcare, education, sport, music and the arts. The National Health Service, for example, has long relied on workers from different parts of the world.
At the same time, concerns about immigration cannot simply be dismissed. Population growth can increase pressure on housing, healthcare, transport and education, particularly in areas where public infrastructure has not expanded sufficiently. Some communities experience difficulties accessing affordable housing or obtaining medical appointments. Local authorities may also face financial and organisational challenges when population growth is faster than investment in public services.
These problems require serious political attention. However, it is important to distinguish between the effects of immigration and failures in government planning. Housing shortages, for example, are influenced by construction rates, planning regulations, investment and the availability of land, as well as population growth. Similarly, pressure on the NHS is connected to staffing shortages, funding decisions and the growing healthcare needs of an ageing population.
The political debate surrounding Jenrick’s comments also reflects competition between the Conservative Party and Reform UK. Immigration has become an important issue for parties seeking to attract voters who feel that successive governments have failed to control migration effectively. By placing national identity at the centre of political discussion, politicians can appeal to concerns about cultural change, border security and the effectiveness of government policy.
However, there are risks associated with using highly controversial language. Political leaders have considerable influence over public discussion, and their words can shape how communities perceive one another. When statements about national identity are interpreted as questioning the belonging of people from particular ethnic backgrounds, they can deepen divisions and undermine trust.
Another important question concerns the meaning of integration. Successful integration does not necessarily require people to abandon their cultural or religious traditions. Rather, it involves participation in society, respect for the law, opportunities for employment and education, and a shared commitment to democratic principles. People can maintain different cultural identities while contributing to a common national community.
For this reason, the government should focus on practical policies that encourage social cohesion. These include improving English-language education, supporting employment opportunities, investing in local communities and ensuring that public services can respond to population changes. Such measures can address legitimate concerns without creating unnecessary divisions between citizens.
Jenrick’s remarks also raise questions about the responsibility of political leaders to distinguish between criticism of immigration policy and criticism of individuals because of their background. It is entirely legitimate to debate immigration levels, border controls and the economic consequences of migration. However, these discussions should be based on reliable evidence and should avoid suggesting that someone’s ancestry automatically determines whether they belong to England.
The reaction from Westminster demonstrates how politically sensitive national identity has become. Politicians from different parties are likely to interpret the controversy according to their own priorities. Some will emphasise the importance of protecting national traditions and controlling immigration, while others will highlight multiculturalism, equal citizenship and the contribution of migrant communities.
Ultimately, the challenge for Britain is to develop a shared understanding of national identity that recognises both its historical traditions and its modern diversity. England can preserve its cultural heritage without excluding citizens whose families originated elsewhere. Similarly, supporting multiculturalism does not mean ignoring legitimate concerns about immigration management, social integration or pressure on public services.
In conclusion, Robert Jenrick’s controversial statement that “millions and millions aren’t English” has reopened an important debate about nationality, ethnicity and belonging in modern Britain. Supporters may see his comments as an attempt to address concerns about cultural identity and immigration, while critics believe they risk excluding people who are fully part of English society. The distinction between ancestry and national identity is central to this debate. Ultimately, Britain’s future depends on its ability to combine effective immigration policies, strong public services and social cohesion with equal respect for all its citizens. Political leaders should be able to discuss difficult questions about immigration and identity, but they also have a responsibility to ensure that these discussions do not undermine the principle that people from different backgrounds can belong to the same national community.