A Labour MP has called for England flags in his constituency to be taken down because they “make people feel uneasy”. Jeevun Sandher put pressure on Leicestershire County Council to take down the Union Jack and St George’s flags erected around the region as part of Operation Raise the Colours in a video shared to X. “Look, I love our flag,” he said. “I see flags flying proudly from flagpoles, from public buildings, I see it when the English football team plays … But here I am, with flags flying from every single lamppost.
“They’re getting a bit tatty, the cable ties are coming loose. They could blow off in the wind. Then I see flags painted on roundabouts, and that is just a bit weird. And you know, because you’ve seen it online, and I see it in my inbox. This does make people feel uneasy. They ask: ‘What message are these flags supposed to be sending?’” The MP for Loughborough and Shepshed went on to say that he understood concerns that the flag-raising campaign was exclusionary, which he described as “not the British way”.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
Operation Raise the Colours became a nationwide campaign over the summer, with England flags raised across the country amid a raging public debate about nationhood and migration.
Flags have been taken down by a number of councils, including Tower Hamlets in London and Birmingham, with officials citing safety and legal concerns.
In September, Leicestershire County Council stated that it would only remove flags if they posed a danger to the public, but urged residents to refrain from painting on roads.
In a statement last month, a spokesperson said: “While it’s actually an offence to attach anything to a streetlight without permission, highways teams will only step in if flags attached to lampposts, or other street furniture, pose a serious safety risk.
“But people are being asked not to paint or graffiti mini-roundabouts and crossings, which is illegal.”
In a letter addressed to the council last week, Mr Sandher said: “Displays of national pride have their rightful place, but lampposts are not it. Flags put up in the dead of night, tied to every lamppost, do not feel like a celebration of community spirit.
“For many, they feel like a statement about who belongs and who does not. The fact our fellow Brits feel unease should make us all pause and reflect.”
In a previous statement, council leader Dan Harrison said: “It’s great to see people being patriotic. Whilst the flags are a welcome sight, the flying must be done safely. I’m proud of our communities, our heritage and our country, and I’m keen to explore how we can celebrate this across Leicestershire.”
Labour MP Jeevun Sandher, who represents Loughborough, has urged Leicestershire County Council to remove flags attached to street furniture, arguing that some displays have become damaged and that constituents have told him they feel uncomfortable about their presence.
The issue has attracted particular attention because Leicestershire County Council is controlled by Reform UK. The dispute has therefore become part of a wider political argument involving Reform, Labour and the growing prominence of national flags in communities across England.
Sandher has stressed that he is not opposed to the flags themselves. Instead, he has argued that the way they are being displayed is the problem.
‘People feel uneasy’
Sandher published a video in which he discussed flags appearing on lampposts and painted on roundabouts.
He said some flags were becoming “tatty”, with cable ties coming loose and the possibility that they could detach and fall into the road. He also said that messages from constituents had made him aware that some people felt uneasy about the displays.
His argument went beyond safety.
Sandher said he understood that many people regarded the flags as expressions of national pride. He said he was proud of Britain and proud of the country’s flag, but added that he also understood why some residents could interpret large numbers of flags as suggesting that certain people belonged while others did not.
That distinction became central to the political controversy.
For supporters of the flag displays, the Union flag and St George’s Cross represent national identity, history and pride.
For critics, the context and method of displaying them can create a different impression, particularly in areas where debates over immigration and national identity have become politically sensitive.
The council’s position
Leicestershire County Council has previously drawn a distinction between flying flags and attaching them to public infrastructure.
In September 2025, the council said that attaching anything to a street light without permission was an offence. However, it also said highways teams would intervene when flags attached to lampposts or other street furniture created a serious safety risk.
The authority separately warned people not to paint or graffiti mini-roundabouts and pedestrian crossings, which it described as illegal.
The council’s then leader, Dan Harrison, said he welcomed people showing patriotism and described national flags as symbols that could bring communities together.
That position placed the council at odds with Sandher over the practical question of what should happen to the flags.
Sandher argued that the council should take action where flags had been attached improperly or had deteriorated.
The council’s approach was more conditional: flags were not automatically removed simply because they had been attached to lampposts, but safety concerns could lead to intervention.
Operation Raise the Colours
The controversy is part of a much larger movement that spread across parts of England during 2025.
Known online as “Operation Raise the Colours”, the campaign encouraged people to display Union flags and St George’s flags in public spaces.
Supporters said the movement was motivated by patriotism and national pride.
The rapid appearance of flags on streets, bridges, roundabouts and lampposts nevertheless generated debate about whether public displays were simply expressions of national identity or whether, in some circumstances, they carried a political message.
BBC reporting on the controversy noted that tensions over immigration were part of the wider context and that the St George’s Cross had sometimes been used by far-right groups. That does not mean that people displaying the flag share those political views; supporters of the displays have repeatedly described them as expressions of patriotism.
That distinction is important because a national symbol can have different meanings for different people.
A resident may see a Union flag as a symbol of Britain.
Another resident may see the same display as a political statement.
The argument in Leicestershire has largely centred on that difference in perception.
Sandher’s personal connection to the flag
Sandher’s comments were particularly notable because he has previously spoken positively about Britain’s national symbols.
According to local reporting, he has said that he loves the flags and recognises their importance as representations of the United Kingdom’s nations.
His wife has also worn the flag on her uniform during her service in the British Army, according to Sandher.
His argument is therefore not that national flags should disappear from public life.
Instead, he has advocated displaying them in ways that he believes are appropriate and inclusive.
He has suggested that flags should be flown proudly from proper flagpoles rather than being attached to every lamppost.
That position allows him to distinguish between patriotism and the physical manner in which flags are being displayed.
A question of belonging
At the heart of the dispute is a much broader question: what should national symbols communicate?
Sandher has argued that Britain should be a country where people feel that they belong regardless of their background.
He has said that displays which make some residents feel excluded undermine the idea of national unity.
His critics take a different view.
Some residents interviewed about the issue said they liked seeing the flags because they regarded them as part of British identity.
One resident quoted by Charnwood News said the flags were a welcome sight and represented an aspect of British identity that he believed had been lost in recent years.
This highlights an important feature of the controversy.
There is no single response to the flags.
Some people see them as reassuring.
Others see them as unnecessary or uncomfortable.
Still others support the symbolism but object to flags being attached to public infrastructure without permission.
Safety is a separate issue
The condition of the flags has provided a more straightforward argument for removal.
A damaged flag hanging loosely from a lamppost can create a potential safety problem regardless of its political or cultural meaning.
The county council has therefore emphasised the practical issue of safety.
Its September statement said flags were welcome when displayed safely but warned against attaching items to street furniture without permission. The council also highlighted the cost and danger associated with painting public roads.
This creates an area of potential agreement between the different sides.
Even supporters of the displays can accept that damaged or dangerous flags should be dealt with.
The disagreement is more pronounced over whether the flags should remain when they are intact and safely positioned.
Reform’s involvement
The Reform connection has added another dimension.
Reform UK won control of Leicestershire County Council in the 2025 local elections, making the authority part of the party’s growing local-government presence.
The council’s leadership has expressed support for patriotic displays while also acknowledging that safety regulations have to be followed.
This has allowed Labour politicians such as Sandher to challenge the council over the way it has handled the issue.
The dispute therefore reflects a wider political divide.
Reform has increasingly emphasised national identity and patriotism in its political messaging.
Labour has also sought to present itself as patriotic while placing greater emphasis on ensuring that national symbols are not used in ways that make parts of the population feel excluded.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about whether Britain should be proud of its national symbols.
Both sides can claim that they support national pride.
The disagreement concerns how that pride should be expressed.
A debate spreading beyond Leicestershire
The controversy is not limited to one county.
National flags have appeared in many parts of England, with displays prompting discussions among councils, residents and politicians.
Some local authorities have warned residents about attaching flags to public infrastructure.
Others have welcomed displays provided that safety and legal requirements are respected.
The debate has also appeared on social media, where arguments over the meaning of the flags have sometimes become highly polarised.
That has made local disagreements more visible nationally.
An ordinary question about whether a flag should remain on a lamppost can quickly become part of a much broader argument about immigration, identity and political affiliation.
Patriotism and political identity
The controversy also reflects a changing political environment in Britain.
National identity has become increasingly prominent in political debate.
Questions about immigration, borders, Brexit and Britain’s relationship with other countries have contributed to renewed attention to symbols such as the Union flag and St George’s Cross.
For some people, displaying those symbols is entirely separate from party politics.
For others, the increased concentration of flags in particular communities can appear connected to political movements.
The challenge for politicians is to recognise both perspectives without automatically assigning political motives to everyone who displays a flag.
A person can display a Union flag because they are proud of Britain.
Another person can feel uncomfortable because they associate a particular display with a political message.
Both reactions can exist simultaneously.
The dispute over public space
There is also a practical democratic question concerning public property.
Lampposts, traffic signs and other street furniture are maintained for public purposes.
Councils therefore have responsibilities relating to safety, access and maintenance.
The question is not necessarily whether flags are patriotic or unpatriotic, but whether people should be allowed to attach objects to public infrastructure without permission.
Leicestershire County Council’s own guidance makes that distinction clear. The authority said attaching items to street lights without permission was an offence while indicating that its highways teams would concentrate on situations involving serious safety risks.
That provides a legal and administrative framework separate from the political argument.
What Sandher is actually calling for
Despite the headline surrounding the controversy, Sandher’s position is more specific than a demand to remove national flags from Britain.
He has argued that flags should be displayed properly rather than being tied to lampposts throughout communities.
He has also said that he wants national symbols to unite rather than divide.
In his view, the method and context of displaying the flags matter.
That is different from arguing that Britain should abandon the Union flag or St George’s Cross.
Indeed, Sandher has repeatedly stated that he is proud of the country’s symbols.
The political disagreement therefore centres on interpretation and public display rather than the existence of the flags themselves.
A continuing argument
The Leicestershire dispute is unlikely to disappear quickly because it touches on several issues that have become increasingly important in British politics: patriotism, immigration, national identity, public space and community relations.
For Reform supporters and many residents, the flags represent pride in Britain and should not automatically be interpreted as hostile to anyone else.
For Sandher and residents who share his concerns, the same displays can sometimes create an unwelcome atmosphere, particularly when flags are attached to every lamppost or become damaged and neglected.
The council’s position adds another dimension by focusing on safety and the legal rules governing street furniture.
Ultimately, the argument illustrates how a simple piece of fabric can become politically significant.
A Union flag can be a symbol of national pride, historical identity or community celebration. In another context, the same display may be interpreted as carrying a political message.
The challenge for local authorities is therefore practical as well as political: allowing legitimate expressions of national identity while ensuring that public infrastructure is used safely and lawfully.
For Sandher, the central message is that national symbols should bring people together.
For supporters of the displays, removing them can appear to send the opposite message.
And for the council, the immediate question remains whether flags attached to public infrastructure are safe, lawful and appropriately maintained.
That is why the argument in Leicestershire has become much bigger than a row over lampposts. It has become a debate about what Britain’s national symbols mean, who feels represented by them, and how patriotism should be expressed in modern Britain.
Labour MP Demands Union Flags Are Taken Down as ‘People Feel Uneasy’
A fresh political row over British national identity has erupted after Labour MP Jeevun Sandher called for Union flags and St George’s flags attached to lampposts in Leicestershire to be removed. His argument has reopened a wider debate about patriotism, public safety, immigration and whether the display of national symbols is bringing communities together or deepening existing divisions.
Sandher, who represents Loughborough, has insisted that he is proud of Britain’s flag. His objection centres on the number of flags appearing on public infrastructure, their condition and the concerns he says have been raised by constituents who feel uneasy about the displays. <Cite refs={[“turn838293search1″,”turn838293search2”]}/>
The controversy has attracted attention partly because the flags have become a visible feature of a broader grassroots campaign known as Operation Raise the Colours. Supporters describe the movement as an expression of national pride. Critics argue that the context in which some flags have appeared can make people from minority backgrounds feel targeted or excluded.
The disagreement raises a question that British politicians have struggled with for years: how can a country encourage pride in its national identity while ensuring that its public spaces feel welcoming to everyone?
Why has the Labour MP objected to the flags?
Sandher has not argued that the Union flag or St George’s Cross should never be displayed. Instead, he has questioned the practice of attaching large numbers of flags to lampposts and other public structures.
In a video discussing the issue, he said he was proud to see flags flying from flagpoles and public buildings, including during international football tournaments. However, he expressed concern about flags appearing on almost every lamppost, particularly when they become damaged or are secured with loose cable ties.
His concerns include the possibility that poorly attached flags could come loose in strong winds and create hazards for pedestrians or road users. He has also said that constituents have contacted him about feeling uncomfortable with the displays. <Cite refs={[“turn838293search1″,”turn838293search2”]}/>
These arguments have become intertwined. Supporters of the flag displays may see the MP’s intervention as criticism of patriotic expression, while Sandher’s position is that national pride does not require objects to be attached to public infrastructure without permission or left in poor condition.
That distinction is important. A debate about whether a flag should be displayed on private property is different from a discussion about whether people should attach it to council-owned street furniture.
Operation Raise the Colours and the national identity debate
The spread of Union flags and St George’s Crosses across parts of England accelerated during the summer of 2025, as the Operation Raise the Colours campaign gained attention online.
Flags appeared on lampposts, roundabouts and other public locations. Supporters said they wanted to celebrate Britain’s history, culture and national identity. In some areas, however, the displays appeared alongside protests concerning immigration and asylum accommodation, prompting concern that the flags could be interpreted as political signals rather than simply expressions of patriotism. <Cite refs={[“turn838293news4”]}/>
The symbolism is not straightforward. The Union flag represents the United Kingdom, while St George’s Cross is the flag of England. Both are used in official ceremonies, sporting events and celebrations, and many people display them without any intention of expressing hostility towards others.
At the same time, national symbols can acquire different meanings depending on the circumstances. In places where immigration has become a source of tension, some residents may interpret a sudden, coordinated display of flags as a statement about who belongs in the community.
That interpretation is not universal, and the presence of a flag alone does not establish the intentions of the person who put it there. A careful discussion must distinguish the symbolism that supporters intend from the reactions that other residents report.
Why supporters see the flags differently
For many people, displaying the national flag is a simple act of pride. They may associate it with sporting achievements, military service, family history, democratic institutions or a shared sense of belonging.
Some supporters of Operation Raise the Colours have argued that the flags should not be treated as inherently divisive simply because immigration and national identity are politically contested subjects. They believe that ordinary citizens should be able to celebrate their country without having their motives questioned.
This perspective also reflects a wider concern among some voters that expressions of English or British identity have become unnecessarily controversial. They argue that national symbols should be available to everyone, regardless of political affiliation or background.
There is a reasonable distinction between displaying a national flag and using it to threaten or intimidate another person. The first is a normal form of expression; the second raises different questions about conduct and intent.
For that reason, the debate cannot be settled simply by declaring that every flag is a sign of inclusion or that every display is intended to exclude. The circumstances, behaviour of those involved and location of the display all matter.
Why some residents feel uncomfortable
Residents who object to the displays may not be opposed to national flags in general. Their concerns can arise from the scale of the campaign, its timing or the wider political messages associated with it.
Reuters reported in August 2025 that the spread of English flags coincided with a politically tense period dominated by immigration and protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers. Some residents in ethnically diverse communities expressed concern that the displays could be interpreted as messages directed at migrant communities. <Cite refs={[“turn838293news4”]}/>
For people who have experienced racism or hostility, symbols associated with nationalist movements may carry associations that other residents do not share. That does not mean every person displaying a flag has hostile intentions, but it helps explain why the same symbol can inspire pride in one person and unease in another.
Politicians therefore face a difficult responsibility. They must protect the freedom to express national pride while taking seriously reports of intimidation or exclusion.
The challenge is to address specific behaviour and evidence rather than assuming that an entire community shares one interpretation of a symbol.
The council’s responsibility over public infrastructure
The practical question is whether flags should be attached to lampposts and other public structures without permission.
Leicestershire County Council has said it removed 159 flags from street furniture during the year following the campaign’s emergence in 2025. The authority cited safety concerns and asked people not to attach objects to lampposts. Some flags were also removed because they were damaged or in very poor condition. <Cite refs={[“turn838293search1”]}/>
Such decisions involve the management of public infrastructure rather than a blanket judgment about patriotism. Councils must consider whether attachments could damage equipment, create hazards or interfere with maintenance.
The rules should be applied consistently. If unauthorised objects are removed because they pose a safety risk or breach established regulations, the same standards should apply regardless of the message those objects convey.
Equally, public authorities should explain their decisions clearly. When a flag is removed, residents should be able to understand whether the reason was safety, lack of permission, damage or another relevant consideration.
Clear rules can help prevent routine maintenance decisions from becoming political confrontations.
The political consequences for Labour
The issue presents a communications challenge for Labour. A party that wishes to represent communities across Britain must be able to speak about patriotism in a way that connects with people who proudly display national flags, while also addressing concerns from residents who feel uncomfortable with particular displays.
If the party appears dismissive of national symbols, opponents may portray it as disconnected from ordinary expressions of national identity. If it ignores concerns about intimidation or unsafe displays, it risks alienating people who expect elected representatives to take those experiences seriously.
Sandher’s stated distinction—that he is proud of the flag but objects to the way some flags are being displayed—attempts to separate national identity from the management of public space. Whether that distinction is understood by voters depends partly on how clearly the issue is explained.
The same challenge applies to other parties. Political leaders can gain attention by presenting the dispute as a simple conflict between patriotism and opposition to patriotism, but such framing overlooks the practical and social questions involved.
A more productive discussion would examine the rules governing public infrastructure, the evidence behind residents’ concerns and the ways communities can celebrate national identity without creating unnecessary conflict.
Can Britain find common ground?
The argument over flags reflects a broader national conversation about belonging. Britain contains communities with different backgrounds, histories and experiences, yet its national symbols are intended to represent a shared political home.
For some, flying a flag is an uncomplicated expression of that shared identity. For others, the context surrounding particular displays can affect whether they feel included.
Neither perspective should automatically be dismissed. People should be able to celebrate their country, and residents should be able to raise concerns about public safety or conduct that makes them feel targeted.
Local authorities can help by setting clear rules for displays on public infrastructure and applying them consistently. Community organisations can create opportunities for residents to discuss local concerns without treating disagreement as evidence of disloyalty. Political leaders can also avoid attributing hostile motives to everyone who holds a different view.
The goal should not be to make national symbols disappear from public life. It should be to ensure that their display remains lawful, safe and compatible with the rights of other residents.
Conclusion
Jeevun Sandher’s call for flags attached to lampposts in Leicestershire to be removed has become part of a wider debate about patriotism, public safety and community relations. The Labour MP says he is proud of Britain’s flag but has raised concerns about damaged displays, possible hazards and constituents who report feeling uneasy. <Cite refs={[“turn838293search1″,”turn838293search2”]}/>
Supporters of the flag campaign see the displays as an expression of national pride, while some residents worry about the political context in which they have appeared. The two interpretations can coexist, and neither should be assumed to describe every person involved.
The practical issue is whether flags are being displayed safely and in accordance with the rules governing public property. The wider social question is how Britain can make room for visible national pride while ensuring that people from different backgrounds feel they belong.
That debate deserves more than slogans. Consistent rules, clear explanations and a willingness to listen to different experiences offer a more constructive path than treating every flag as either a symbol of unity or proof of division.