Reading the local newspapers and listening to those who hold forth at Grey's Monument in Newcastle city centre I get the impression that there is an increasing polarisation of opinion.

One view is that of those who may hold a secure place within senior management, or even a directorship, within a large national or transnational company.

They might say: "We recruit wherever we can find the young workforce of the right quality, aptitude and attitudes to work. It does not matter where they come from. If local young people want to find work they must show they can compete, and keep up with the times, which are changing. If they don't have what we want, we will look elsewhere."

An extreme opposite view will be heard from the base of Grey's Monument, at the Occupy campsite, where you will be reminded that the Corporate World is the new Imperialism, and that the oppressed workforce all over the world must unite to resist economic oppression and the loss of employment, job security, workers' rights, and humanly acceptable hours of work and working conditions.

Occupy campsite beneath Grey's Monument in Newcastle

Now the danger of these polarised views - which I have tried to portray rather stereotypically - is that they do not show the slightest concern for, or awareness of, national identity, which in our case is English. The successful and securely placed businessman may long ago have forgotten that he is English, and sees not young English people looking for employment, but individual economic units who will either fit into his corporate mould or they will not. Business is business!

Meanwhile, the political activists at the other end of the scale see very much the same thing, really. They do not see young English people at all, and may even be hostile to any pretension to national identity: they also see individual economic units - albeit oppressed economic units - and would want considerations of class to displace any particular local inherited ethnic/national identity

In truth, these politically-motivated positions have in the past led to divisions in human society which are very deep, and hard to reconcile. As I see it, it is only a healthy nationalism, with its shared sense of common origin and common culture, that is likely to bridge these deep political chasms. I would also add that a shared Faith may also have a powerful reconciling effect, provided that it is indeed shared by those on both sides of the political divide. As it is, we may well see this political polarisation increase, and any sense of shared English identity and its vital human importance go out of the window. Unless, of course, something is done about it.

Is nationalism out of date?

You will meet a lot of people, including those of the sort mentioned above, who will say, "But nationalism is out of date: it does not fit into modern economics or the modern way of life. Besides, hasn't nationalism been responsible for the most terrible evils in the course of history?"

It is very easy to reply to the first objection there. No, of course nationalism does not fit in with modern economics, and that is precisely why it is so urgently necessary! Nor does nationalism fit in with the modern way of life, to the extent that this was generated by modern economics and is dependent on it. We need something that will cut across modern economic theory, and provide a basis to challenge it and think outside it, and also to help question the modern way of life.

As for the second objection, it can be said that every good thing in human experience, if powerful and deep-rooted, is capable of devastatingly bad effects if it is perverted. It is true, for instance, of Religion, Philosophy, Medicine, the Arts, and Natural Sciences in the applied form of technologies.

Nationalism does not have to be perverted, and in most cases apart from the English (and maybe the Germans) no one would think to raise this objection. Conversely, it can be argued strongly that nationalism is an anthropological necessity: human culture is such a necessity, and you have to have separate individual nations to embody such cultures.

The menace of multiculturalism

As others have remarked, as well as myself, while we may all agree that the issue itself - the question of what set of beliefs the English People have - is a vitally important one, we all realise that there is no near prospect of agreement on the matter of which of the range of beliefs found is closest to the truth. Besides, were we English to agree among ourselves and resolve the issue, we would still have to be at variance with many if not most of the ethnic minorities currently resident in England!

This being the case, one would expect that those who decide public policy should reflect the situation, encouraging harmony between the historically-present positions on religion in England, recognising the historically prevalent influence of Christianity since very early times, while also tolerating the practice of other religions among ethnic minorities.

Cultural indoctrination - non Muslim schoolchildren visit mosque

What I increasingly find, however, is the Liberal Secularist line, which may fairly be stated thus:

"All faiths are matters of private opinion and predilection, however widely shared, and may have no bearing on public policy or matters of State."

"No position on religion should be allowed more influence than others, or be accorded precedence over others."

"Nevertheless, particular faiths are useful in practice, as they usually have a certain civilising influence, and offer some comfort to many sick or elderly people. Besides, this, the faiths typically have a significant cultural value. All these positive indications are especially true of the faiths of the ethnic minority peoples above all else."

"As we welcome 'diversity', young children, in their school curricula, must experience these different faiths, celebrate their observances together, as an important element of Multiculturalism."

If this really is what is happening, I do not think that it is acceptable to thoughtful English people of any of the historically-present standpoints on faith and religion among the English themselves.