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

Labour MP Demands Union Flags Are Taken Down as ‘People Feel Uneasy’

A Labour MP has called for Union flags and St George’s flags to be removed from parts of his constituency, arguing that the increasingly prominent displays are making some local people feel uneasy.

Jeevun Sandher, Labour MP for Loughborough, has become involved in a growing dispute over flags attached to lampposts and other street furniture across Leicestershire. His intervention has quickly become part of a wider national argument over patriotism, British identity and the growing visibility of national flags on streets across England.

Sandher has stressed that he is not opposed to the Union flag itself.

In a video shared online, he said he loved the British flag and understood why people were proud to display it. He pointed to flags flown from flagpoles, public buildings and sporting events as examples of what he regarded as perfectly normal expressions of national pride.

His objection was directed instead at the scale and manner of the displays.

He complained that flags had been attached to lampposts throughout the area, with some becoming damaged, cables and cable ties coming loose and the material potentially blowing into the road. He also referred to flags painted on roundabouts, describing that practice as unusual.

But it was his reference to people feeling uncomfortable that gave the controversy a much wider political dimension.

‘People feel uneasy’

Sandher said he had received messages from constituents about the flags and had become aware that some people did not feel comfortable with them.

That argument is now at the heart of the dispute.

Supporters of widespread flag displays argue that the Union Jack and St George’s Cross are ordinary national symbols. They say there is nothing inherently political about displaying them and that people should be free to express pride in their country.

Critics, however, point to the political circumstances surrounding some of the recent flag campaigns.

The dispute in Leicestershire is linked to the wider “Raise the Colours” movement, which has promoted the display of British and English flags. Similar campaigns have appeared elsewhere, sometimes against the backdrop of contentious debates about immigration and asylum accommodation.

That has made the meaning of the flags increasingly contested.

For one resident, a Union flag may simply represent Britain. For another, a large concentration of flags appearing suddenly across a neighbourhood may carry a political message.

Sandher’s intervention rests on precisely that distinction.

He is not saying that Britain should have no flags. Instead, he is questioning whether public infrastructure such as lampposts should become covered with them, particularly when some residents have expressed concerns about what the displays represent.

A political battle in Leicestershire

The dispute has also acquired an important political dimension because Leicestershire County Council is controlled by Reform UK.

Reform has made patriotism, immigration and national identity major elements of its political message. Its politicians have generally defended the increased visibility of British and English flags, portraying them as legitimate expressions of national pride.

Labour politicians such as Sandher are taking a different approach.

The disagreement therefore reflects a much broader divide in British politics.

Reform supporters can argue that national symbols should not be treated as controversial simply because some political groups have adopted them. Labour politicians and community organisations can counter that symbols acquire meaning from the circumstances in which they are used.

Neither interpretation automatically determines what an individual flag means.

That is one reason the argument has proved so difficult to resolve.

The condition of the flags

There is also a practical issue beneath the political dispute.

Sandher highlighted the condition of some of the flags, saying they had become “tatty” and that some cable ties were coming loose.

That raises questions about responsibility for installing flags on public infrastructure.

A flag displayed on private property is one thing. A flag attached to council-owned street furniture raises additional questions about permission, maintenance and public safety.

If flags become damaged or detached, councils may have to decide who is responsible for removing them.

In that sense, Sandher’s complaint is partly about public administration rather than ideology.

But the political context makes it almost impossible for the issue to remain purely administrative.

When national flags become a subject of public debate, even decisions about damaged material can quickly become arguments about identity.

Why the Union Jack has become controversial

The Union flag has traditionally been one of Britain’s most recognisable symbols.

It appears at royal events, international sporting competitions, military ceremonies, government buildings and national celebrations.

For many people, it is simply a symbol of the United Kingdom.

But the flag has also been associated at different times with political movements and arguments about Britishness.

That history means that its public display can be interpreted differently depending on the surrounding circumstances.

The debate has intensified as Britain has faced arguments about immigration, Brexit, multiculturalism and national sovereignty.

The St George’s Cross has become particularly prominent in England, where supporters say English identity has been neglected in British political debate.

Critics respond that the increased use of English flags can sometimes accompany exclusionary rhetoric.

The existence of that political association does not mean that everyone displaying a flag shares the same views. It does, however, explain why the symbolism has become contested.

The wider ‘flag war’

Leicestershire is not the only place where flags have become a source of disagreement.

In Birmingham, residents previously removed Union flags put up as part of an anti-migrant campaign, leading to a confrontation in which a man was hit by a van. Local Labour MP Al Carns subsequently raised concerns with police after residents reported harassment and intimidation.

The Birmingham incident demonstrates how quickly arguments over flags can escalate when they become connected with demonstrations and immigration politics.

It also illustrates an important distinction.

A peaceful person displaying a flag is not equivalent to someone using a flag as part of harassment or intimidation.

The symbol itself does not determine the behaviour surrounding it.

That distinction is essential if public debate is to avoid treating every expression of patriotism as political extremism.

A difficult position for Labour

Sandher’s intervention also highlights the difficult position facing Labour.

The party has increasingly sought to present itself as patriotic and comfortable with national identity.

Labour politicians have made greater use of British symbols, while the party has sought to challenge Reform’s claim to be the natural political home of voters concerned about national identity.

That creates an obvious tension.

If Labour embraces patriotism, it must also decide what forms of patriotic expression it is comfortable with.

Sandher’s comments suggest that there are differences within the party over where that boundary should lie.

Other Labour figures have taken a more positive approach towards visible English identity.

The result is an increasingly complicated political landscape in which national symbols are no longer confined to traditional Conservative or right-wing politics.

‘I love our flag’

Perhaps the most important part of Sandher’s argument is that he explicitly said he loved the flag.

That qualification matters.

His criticism was not that the Union Jack is offensive or that people should not be proud of Britain.

Instead, he was arguing that public displays can become excessive and that councils should consider the concerns of residents who feel uncomfortable.

Whether that distinction convinces the public is another matter.

Those defending the displays may argue that the people who feel uneasy should not determine what symbols everyone else is allowed to display.

They may also point out that Britain has traditionally tolerated a wide range of political and cultural symbols in public spaces.

Opponents can respond that public authorities have responsibilities to maintain shared spaces in ways that do not unnecessarily increase community tensions.

The disagreement is therefore fundamentally about competing ideas of public space.

Patriotism and belonging

The controversy also raises a deeper question: who gets to define what British patriotism looks like?

For one group, patriotism means flying a flag outside the home.

For another, it means supporting the NHS, paying taxes, volunteering or helping neighbours.

For others, it may mean celebrating British history, supporting the armed forces or watching the national football team.

There is no single form of patriotism.

That makes it difficult to conclude that one expression is automatically more genuine than another.

Recent comments from other Labour politicians have demonstrated just how divided the party can be on this question. Former Labour MP Rachael Maskell, for example, criticised the prominence of English flags and said she wanted “a little bit of a break from flags”, while describing her reaction to seeing St George’s flags at Labour conference in strongly personal terms.

The comments demonstrate that the issue is not simply a Labour-versus-Reform argument.

There are competing views within Labour itself.

A debate that is unlikely to disappear

The dispute in Leicestershire may ultimately be resolved through relatively mundane questions about council permission, public safety and maintenance.

But the political argument behind it is unlikely to disappear.

Britain is experiencing a period of intense discussion about national identity. Brexit changed the country’s relationship with Europe. Immigration has become one of the most politically sensitive issues in the country. Reform UK has placed national sovereignty and identity at the centre of its political message, while Labour is attempting to construct its own version of patriotic politics.

In that environment, flags have become more than decorations.

They can be expressions of pride, symbols of political movements, reminders of history or simply pieces of fabric attached to a lamppost.

What they mean depends partly on who is looking at them.

Sandher’s argument is that councils should recognise that reality and consider residents who feel uneasy about the scale of the displays.

Those defending the flags will argue that discomfort alone should not determine whether national symbols remain visible.

The challenge for local authorities will be finding a balance between freedom of expression, public safety, community cohesion and the ordinary right to express national pride.

One thing is clear: the argument is no longer simply about whether Britain should fly its flag.

It is about what the flag means, who feels represented by it, and how national identity should be expressed in Britain’s increasingly divided political landscape.