Liberal elites put their reputation at Davos ahead of Britain’s interests

Brits have always been conscious of our international standing. We are an outward-looking, trading nation which has always engaged with the world. After the end of empire, we became worried by our comparative decline. This was not entirely for sentimental reasons. People studied the size of our economy, the balance of payments, the capability of our military and our sphere of influence - in other words, the metrics of raw power.

But the recent obsession with our "international reputation" is different: it has become the preoccupation of liberal elites, not of ordinary patriotic Brits. And the metric against which it is now assessed is no longer power but perception.

What is deemed to strengthen or weaken our "international reputation" invariably reflects the metropolitan elite's ideological prejudices. The internationally mobile - who David Goodhart would describe as the "anywheres" - have an interest in preserving their social status at home and abroad. So what they really mean when they invoke our "reputation" is not our true national status, but their own reputation and employability among foreign liberal elites. What reception would a crackdown on illegal migration receive in Davos? How will the UN react?

Hypocrisy abounds. Some who protest about our reputation seem curiously willing to sell out once private interest has replaced public office. Nick Clegg is Meta's lobbyist-in-chief. Tony Blair has established himself as salesman for hire by foreign dictatorships that need reputation laundering. Contrast that with Jim Callaghan who retired to his farm, or Margaret Thatcher who established a foundation to perpetuate her ideas rather than her income. The dignity of those who exercise power is at its most evident when they no longer wield it.

Through the chattering class's eyes, even the most remotely conservative pronouncements, still less policy, have a devastating effect on "our" reputation.

This bogus argument was invoked during the EU referendum when advocates of Brexit were condemned as endangering our standing on the world stage.

Now the same argument is deployed to support the liberal elite's latest preoccupations. Take net zero, where they argue that pursuing a more pragmatic approach will jeopardise our status. With whom? The Americans, whose economy has boomed thanks to their shale revolution? Or India, with its expansion in coal power plants? The reality is we have decarbonised faster than any G20 country. And at great cost to our industries: we have the fourth most expensive commercial energy in Europe. Moving ever more quickly to green technologies will make us even more dependent on imports like electric vehicles from China.

Perhaps the most startling example of this liberal prejudice is their skewed perspective on immigration and defence. Dare to criticise the fact that the European Convention on Human

Rights compromises our security and you'll be greeted with cries from the Left: leave and you'll enter the club of dictators, Belarus, and Russia. They never admit that it would mean joining our Five Eyes allies.

These appeals to our "reputation" ring hollow to a public more concerned by their ability to live in a country with secure borders, safe streets, good jobs and cheap energy. The vanity of the liberal elite is a "luxury belief " in action.

Naturally these individuals have a poor grasp of what our reputation actually is. Gallup polling of different countries shows consistently positive opinions of the UK. Nor do they understand what generates reputations. Foreign citizens are not political anoraks. Just as the average Brit doesn't think less of Italy for their fiscal instability, so the average European rarely dwells upon our political instability. Instead, it is our rich cultural past and thriving cultural future - from Shakespeare to The Crown, Wembley to Wimbledon - that we are known and revered for.

If you were to speak to ordinary people in Europe, you'd find Britain held in high regard as a loyal friend. From the Balkans to Brittany, and today in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, Britain is seen as a force for good. This is either disregarded or denied by a metropolitan elite determined to rewrite the history of Britain as one of shame and disgrace.

Liberal elites will talk about anything and everything except what actually diminishes our ability to influence. Indeed, we have more to fear from our failures domestically to tackle problems like violent crime on our cities' streets. We have weak growth, a high trade deficit, low productivity and a shrinking military. From the police to universities, institutions consistently fail to defend our national heritage and identity. How can we ask the world to advance our values and interests when we struggle to do so ourselves?

If nation states are to succeed in an age of intensifying great power competition, politicians must relentlessly pursue the interests of their country's citizens over those outside it. That means reaffirming the enduring principle of national interest to deliver the common good. That is our duty as elected representatives. The leaders who grasp this are invariably those whose reputations endure.