National identity debate has returned to the fore after Rishi Sunak used a column in the Times to warn against treating belonging as a matter of blood. Sunak, the UK’s first prime minister of colour and first Hindu, recounted an episode in which a podcaster dismissed him as not English because he was a “brown‑skinned Hindu” and described the experience as a “reverse Tebbit test”. In his piece he warned that suggesting someone is not English because they are not white puts the conversation on a “very slippery slope”.
Arguments over Englishness often draw on older cultural signposts. The so‑called Tebbit test — the idea that immigrants’ allegiance might be read from which cricket team they support — remains a touchstone in debates about integration and loyalty. Conservative figures including Jacob Rees‑Mogg have publicly pushed back against defining English identity solely in ethnic terms, yet tensions between civic and ethnic interpretations persist in political rhetoric.
The recurring question of whether non‑white people can be English has concrete social effects. It shapes media coverage of politicians and public figures from diverse backgrounds and affects how citizens perceive belonging. Sunak’s warning about a slippery slope highlights the danger that exclusionary definitions could normalise hierarchies of belonging and narrow the terms of public participation for minority communities.
As the country becomes more plural, discussion of Britishness and belonging is unlikely to fade. Public debate will continue to test whether national identity is anchored in ancestry or in shared civic values. The persistence of the question underlines the importance of informed, rights‑based discussion about identity, inclusion and the standards by which a modern democracy recognises who belongs.
