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.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has won another council by-election (Image: Getty)

Reform are celebrating another election victory after winning a council-by election. The party took a seat previously held by Labour in the Shelley ward of Ongar Town Council, in the Epping Forest District in Essex. The Reform candidate received 352 votes while Labour’s candidate received 100 votes.

Reform MP James Murdock said: “78% of the votes go to Reform in latest Essex by-election. Gain from Labour. Well done team.” It follows local elections earlier this year in which Nigel Farage’s Reform UK made sweeping gains, as well as winning the Parliamentary by-election in Runcorn and Helsby, previously a safe Labour seat. Reform picked up 10 councils and more than 600 council seats, and also won two mayoral elections.

Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more

I would like to receive emails from the Daily Express featuring our latest products, services, offers, and promotions from across the Reach Plc family.

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.

A county council now run by Reform will not fly a Pride flag this summer and will remove the Ukrainian flag from the chamber, the new council leader confirmed.

At the beginning of May, Reform swept to a local elections victory in Kent taking 57 of 81 council seats, wiping out a Conservative majority which had stood for almost 30 years.

On Thursday, councillors heard from the new leader of Kent County Council, Linden Kemkaran, at their annual general meeting at County Hall in Maidstone, Kent.

Ms Kemkaran, Kent’s Reform leader, told the chamber her new administration had little time for “special interest groups” or the flags that represent them.

“The Union Jack, the flag of St George and the flag of Kent, they are the identity that we all share and it is that identity that we need to focus on,” she said.

Her words were met with raucous applause and table thumping from the Reform benches, likened to a “political rally” by the council’s opposition leader, Liberal Democrat Antony Hook.

“We are here to unite not divide and that’s why we don’t have much time for special interest groups and flags that represent special interest groups,” added Ms Kemkaran.

The new Kent County Council leader also told the chamber she was looking to create a department of government efficiency (Doge) to root out problems in the council.

Opposition leader Mr Hook voiced fears that the Reform administration would be taking instructions from the national leaders of Reform UK.

Outside the chamber, he said: “It was really shocking to me that in a recent podcast the leader of Reform said that she had to sort of take instructions from Reform’s national chairman.

“That’s the sort of thing we’ve never heard at Kent County Council before. Under different administrations it’s always been clear that policy is made in Kent by county councillors not taking instructions from national parties.”

Concerns were also raised by opposition councillors about the future of environmental initiatives across the county.

Related articles

• Pensioners could be forced to wait 12 months for Starmer’s winter fuel u-turn
• Lucy Connolly’s husband breaks silence and says ‘they’re making example of her’
• Moment Brexit row erupts on BBC QT and Fiona Bruce is forced to step in

Donald Trump ‘laughing at us’ over £30bn Chagos Islands deal says Kemi

Reform Celebrate Another By-Election Win Over Labour – 78% of the Vote

Reform UK has been celebrating another strong result in a by-election, with supporters pointing to the scale of the vote as evidence that the party continues to make gains in areas where Labour has traditionally been competitive.

The result has once again placed the spotlight on the changing political landscape across Britain. For Reform, every successful by-election campaign provides an opportunity to demonstrate that its support is not limited to national opinion polls or high-profile parliamentary contests. For Labour, meanwhile, such contests provide a reminder that local elections can produce sharply different outcomes depending on turnout, candidates, local issues and the strength of competing parties.

The headline figure of 78 per cent has attracted particular attention, although figures circulating around individual by-elections need to be carefully distinguished from official vote shares. Recent council contests, for example, have produced much closer races between Reform and Labour. In Blackpool’s Claremont ward on October 1, Labour retained the seat with 41.8 per cent, while Reform finished on 38.2 per cent.

Nevertheless, the wider political significance of Reform’s recent performances is difficult to ignore.

Reform builds its local election machine

Reform UK has spent much of the past year attempting to transform itself from a party associated primarily with Nigel Farage into a nationwide political organisation capable of competing consistently at local level.

That process has produced a series of council gains and by-election victories.

The party’s own account of its performance in 2026 says it won more than 1,450 council seats at the May local elections and took control of 14 councils. Those figures are party claims and should be viewed in that context, but they demonstrate the scale of Reform’s local-government ambitions.

By-elections offer a different test.

Unlike large-scale local elections, a single ward contest can depend heavily on a small number of highly motivated voters. Campaigners can concentrate their resources, candidates can develop strong local profiles, and national political controversies can become secondary to very specific concerns about council services.

For Reform, this creates an opportunity to build a reputation one ward at a time.

Labour faces a different political environment

Labour remains a major force in British local government, but the electoral environment has become more fragmented.

The traditional Conservative-Labour contest is increasingly being challenged by Reform, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, independents and newer political groups.

That fragmentation matters because a party does not necessarily need to win an overwhelming share of the vote to take a seat. A divided opposition can allow a candidate to win with a relatively modest percentage.

The reverse is also true.

The October 2026 Claremont contest demonstrated how easily expectations can be overturned. Reform had been regarded by one polling model as the favourite before voting, but Labour ultimately retained the seat by 39 votes. Reform received 419 votes compared with Labour’s 458, while Restore Britain took 79 and the Conservatives 62. Turnout was only around 22 per cent.

That result illustrates why individual by-elections should not automatically be treated as straightforward measurements of national popularity.

Why by-elections matter to Reform

Even so, Reform clearly sees local contests as strategically important.

A strong result gives the party several advantages.

First, it provides additional councillors who can build political experience.

Second, it gives Reform a stronger presence in communities where it previously had little organisation.

Third, successful campaigns provide local activists with experience that can later be used during larger elections.

And fourth, victories allow the party to argue that its support is becoming geographically broader.

That final point is particularly important.

Reform emerged from the political tradition surrounding Brexit and Nigel Farage’s long campaign against Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Its challenge since then has been to broaden its appeal beyond voters whose principal concern is Brexit.

Immigration, taxation, public spending, housing, crime, energy costs and the performance of public services have therefore become increasingly important parts of the party’s political message.

Farage’s role remains central

Nigel Farage continues to play a central role in how Reform presents itself.

His personal profile gives the party an unusual level of national recognition for a relatively young political organisation. At the same time, the party has been attempting to demonstrate that Reform can operate successfully without relying entirely on Farage’s presence.

Council elections and by-elections are therefore important laboratories for that experiment.

Every councillor elected under the Reform banner contributes to the party’s organisational infrastructure.

That does not automatically translate into parliamentary success. But it does create a network of elected representatives who can campaign locally, develop relationships with residents and become familiar political figures in their communities.

The transformation from protest movement into governing organisation is therefore one of the most important questions facing Reform.

The 78 per cent figure needs context

The headline claim of 78 per cent is striking, but election percentages can sometimes be misleading when removed from their context.

The number of candidates, turnout, the electorate, whether the election is a council or parliamentary contest, and whether the figure refers to votes cast or another measure all matter.

A candidate receiving 78 per cent of votes in a two-candidate contest would represent a very different political phenomenon from receiving 78 per cent in a heavily contested election with several candidates.

This is why official result data are particularly important when assessing individual by-elections.

Recent results also show how unpredictable these contests can be. On October 1, Labour gained Amble from Reform in Northumberland, while Labour also gained Hirst. Reform’s vote fell to 33.5 per cent in Amble and 30 per cent in Hirst.

At the same time, Reform continues to record significant victories elsewhere.

The party reported seven council by-election wins in June, including contests in St Helens, Tamworth, Cambridgeshire, Denbighshire, Nuneaton and Bedworth, and Staffordshire.

The picture, therefore, is not one of a uniform national swing in every individual ward. It is a rapidly changing and increasingly competitive local political environment.

A warning for both major parties

For Labour, the rise of Reform creates a complicated electoral challenge.

The party cannot simply assume that previous voting patterns will return.

Some communities that have historically supported Labour are now being contested by Reform candidates campaigning heavily on immigration, taxation, national identity and dissatisfaction with Westminster politics.

At the same time, Labour’s local victories demonstrate that Reform is not winning every contest.

The Claremont result is a useful example. Labour held the seat despite losing more than ten percentage points compared with its previous vote share, while Reform entered the contest without having fielded a candidate in the previous comparable election.

That tells a more complicated story than either party’s campaign slogans might suggest.

Reform’s next challenge

The central question now is whether Reform can turn individual victories into sustained local political strength.

Winning a by-election is one thing.

Running a council is another.

Once elected, councillors have to deal with budgets, planning applications, social care, roads, housing, waste collection and numerous administrative responsibilities. Political slogans become less important when residents want practical answers about their neighbourhoods.

Reform’s performance in local government will therefore be closely watched.

If its councillors can establish themselves as effective representatives, the party could strengthen its local base. If internal disagreements, administrative problems or controversial decisions dominate the headlines, the electoral benefits may be harder to sustain.

For Labour and the Conservatives, the same principle applies.

The era when local contests could be treated simply as extensions of national party loyalties is becoming less certain.

A changing political map

The latest by-election battles form part of a much larger transformation in British politics.

The old two-party structure has weakened, while smaller parties and independents have gained opportunities to challenge established political organisations.

Reform’s rise is one of the most visible elements of that change.

Whether the reported 78 per cent figure applies to a particular contest or has been amplified in political commentary, the broader story is that Reform is increasingly present in local electoral battles. Recent official results show both victories and defeats, suggesting that the party’s expansion is significant but not uniform.

For voters, the growing competition means that local elections are becoming more consequential.

For political parties, it means that no ward can necessarily be taken for granted.

And for Reform UK, every by-election offers another test of whether its national profile can be converted into a durable grassroots organisation.

The next contests will provide further evidence.

Rather than one result determining the direction of British politics, it is the accumulation of dozens of local campaigns, council victories, defeats and changing voter loyalties that will ultimately reveal how Britain’s increasingly fragmented political landscape is developing.