Against the backdrop of Reform UK leading in the polls, domestic nationalist campaigns such as Operation Raise the Colours, the ongoing small-boats crisis, and stubbornly high levels of legal immigration, the Labour Government has attempted to seize the narrative when it comes to patriotism and national pride.
Yesterday in the House of Commons, the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced what in her words was “a practical plan to strengthen our border security” and that her government would never “seek to stir up chaos, division, and hate”. She declared that the values of “togetherness, fairness and decency” represent “our flags, our King, and our country”.
This was followed up with a tweet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who boasted that he proudly has the national flag up at his home and that “using our flag to divide devalues it”.
The Home Secretary’s announcement to suspend family-reunion applications by those granted refugee status is a step in the right direction. New migrants may be arriving here with longer-term goals – such as finding work in the ‘underground’ economy, sending remittances to their country of origin, and bringing their relatives to the UK in the future.
In 14 words, Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper just gave tacit approval to open borders - Rakib Ehsan | Getty Images
Younger, able-bodied migrants who manage to make their way into Britain can create the ‘opening’ for other family members to join them later through the formal process of family reunification.
Abuse of the UK’s asylum system can be a strategic plan among ‘clans’ in lands afar, and turning the screw on family reunification routes for refugees is part of the solution. In that sense, Cooper should be given some credit on this front.
But there is a wider ‘cultural’ point to be made here. The so-called ‘progressive patriotism’ of the modern-day Labour Party is ultimately rooted in being generous towards those who do not belong to the national democratic community – even those who have entered the UK without the official permission of the relevant public authorities.
The Home Office’s recent successful appeal, which overturned an injunction which ordered the removal of asylum seekers from the Bell Hotel in the Essex market town of Epping, was a glaring example of the British state prioritising the individual rights of foreign newcomers over the collective security of the established local population.
It takes a special lack of self-awareness for the Home Secretary to speak so confidently on what it means to be a patriot when one considers how the impact of the small-boats emergency in Epping has been handled by the Labour Government.
The truth is that British national pride – and specifically English identity – cannot simply be watered down to vague and nebulous ‘buzzwords’ such as togetherness, fairness, and decency.
It means being protective of national history, heritage, and traditions; cherishing the freedoms of expression and assembly; and ensuring that there is a specialness to being a member of the democratic national community.
To be a stable national home where Burke’s ‘little platoons’ can thrive in peace and security, the State must be discriminatory, selective, and exclusionary in terms of public policy – whether it is who is granted refugee status, who is permitted to enter the UK to work and live, or who qualifies for social housing and forms of welfare assistance.
If there are no real parameters or boundaries on these fronts, Britain is essentially reduced to being a borderless international outpost where nationality and citizenship count for little.
Compassion must be shown in a controlled manner; generosity regulated by hard-headedness.
No government can seriously claim to be patriotic if it is failing miserably over matters of border security and public safety. Instead of lecturing us on what the national flag represents, the Labour Government should focus on the bread-and-butter of governing in a way which puts the safety and security of law-abiding British citizens first.