Across towns and cities in England, councils and residents have become engaged in a fierce ideological clash over the display of national flags, such as the Union Jack and the flag of St George.
Operation Raise the Colours, a grassroots campaign that began in Birmingham and East London, spreading to Manchester, Bradford, Newcastle, Norwich, Worcester, Redditch, York, Teignmouth, and the Isle of Wight, rallies for the utilisation of such symbolic nationalist imagery in streets to promote Anglocentric patriotism.
The movement has utilised social media such as Telegram, Facebook, WhatsApp as the campaign’s nervous system, coordinating efforts with ladders, cable ties, poles, and cars to drape the St George’s Cross over the streets of England.
While claiming to be a celebration of English and British pride, many believe that the movement is at least in part an anti-immigration demonstration, with links to the far-right.
However, the nature of funding and organisation supplied betray the true intent: The Weoley Warriors reportedly raised between £2,500 and £11,000 for supplies, whilst far right group Britain First contributed 200–250 flags.
It would be naive to ignore the overtly nationalist intentions of such displays, especially considering the critical stance such groups have taken upon displays of the Palestinian flag by sympathetic protesters.
As a result, in Birmingham roundabouts now bear freshly painted crosses, a bold and unyielding mark of English identity. Indeed, the symbolism is unmistakable, though its political reception has far from created patriotic unity as the ringleaders claim to have intended.
Councils have reacted with caution or, as some might argue, veiled hostility. Birmingham City Council and Tower Hamlets have removed flags, citing safety hazards and the obstruction of LED upgrades, with some residents reporting feelings of intimidation by members of the council.
North Northamptonshire Council, under Reform UK control, has taken the opposite stance, defending the flags as a “visible expression of pride.” Other councils have quietly intervened, framing removals as routine maintenance of street furniture.
Considering the stark disparity in council reaction, the protests of BCC and THC clearly illustrate the true intentions of this movement, for both areas are significantly more diverse than other regions of the country, thus prompting councillors to fear that enabling this movement to continue could cause further clashes between the emerging chasm of ideology.
After all, Birmingham has consistently been the epicentre of political conflict, regarding nationalism and global activism. Further, the support from Reform could be regarded as simply an attempt to appeal the the ever-increasing patriotic class, in their continued crusade to steal support from the Conservative party.
Nationally, politicians have not remained silent on this issue, on either side of the commons, although haven’t truly intervened either.
From the Conservative Party, Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp condemned flag removals as a “two-tier policy,” while Prime Minister Keir Starmer affirmed support for patriotic displays, particularly during sporting events, yet stopped short of intervening, referring to it as a local dispute, thus relieving himself of any responsibility. Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary and Conservative leadership hopeful, posted his support for the movement on X, raising his own flag.
Arguably, this decision not to intervene indicates Starmer’s ideological dilemma, unable to criticise, for fear of being branded unpatriotic, yet fearing the loss of support from Labour supporters, considering that councils whom have dissented have been those of Labour majorities.
On the other side of the spectrum, Reform UK has predictably lauded the campaign as a vehicle for “unity and inclusion,” and far-right activist Tommy Robinson has openly endorsed the initiative, clearly further determining the nature of ORTC as purely nationalistic, deployed to recruit and drum up support.
Moreover, considering Britain First’s involvement, accusations have intensified regarding this patriotic fervor as a cover for extremism. This fear cannot be said to be unfounded, for in multicultural districts, such as Tower Hamlets, some locals, especially those in minority groups, have reported that they feel intimidated by the sudden proliferation of flags, fearing their use will lead to increased frisson and violence.
Nationally, public sentiment is mixed, for roughly 57 per cent of Britons support displaying English flags, while 27 per cent view them negatively, for historically patriotism has resulted in violent clashes, such as the summer riots in 2024.
The legal framework complicates matters further, as while flags may fly freely on private property, lampposts and public highways remain subject to regulation, leaving councils free to enforce removals. Whether safety concerns are truly the main reason for removal is highly debatable however, further adding fuel to critics’ dissent.
It is obvious that the debate at the heart of Operation Raise the Colours is one of identity. St George’s Cross, historically intertwined with football hooliganism and far-right movements, has once again become a contested symbol of Anglocentric patriotism. Against this backdrop, questions will continue to arise not only about safety and legality but also about who is allowed to own the narrative of English pride.
Is it the councils, tasked with maintaining civic order, or the citizens, asserting a visible claim to national heritage? Unfortunately, national identity is being disfigured into a ugly façade for xenophobic hatred, almost Orwellian in the way supporters of either side blindly accept opinions to be truthful, participating in displays of false unity to further hatred.
As flags continue to rise and fall across England, one thing remains clear: In a society as complex and multicultural as modern Britain, even a simple banner can provoke a fierce, unrelenting debate about who we are and what we dare to display.
Featured image via Watcharisma / Shutterstock.
