A left-wing MP has reacted to Labour members waving the St George’s cross at the party conference (Image: Getty)

A rebel left-wing Labour and Co-operative MP has called English flags “tatty bits of cloth” and said they should be removed from lamp posts. Rachael Maskell, MP for York Central – who had the whip suspended this year after rebelling against Sir Keir Starmer – said her “stomach churned” when fellow party members waved the St George’s cross at the recent party’s conference.

Speaking at a university event, Ms Maskell said: “I personally think we need a little bit of a break from flags right now, and my stomach churned at Labour party conference when everyone got out their St George’s flag… that’s not the Labour party. “And Keir Starmer with his two Union Jacks regimented behind him… that’s not the Labour Party. “The Labour Party is the insurgent to the colonial state, you know, it’s not about owning it. “So I think having a bit of a break from flags would be therapeutic for us all in having to wrestle with this.” This comes after Sir Keir’s keynote speech in Liverpool, in which he urged members to “fly our flags”.

In Keir Starmer’s speech at the Labour party conference, he urged members to ‘fly our flags’ (Image: Getty)

Ms Maskell was suspended from the Labour Whip in July this year after rebelling against Sir Keir Starmer’s welfare cuts.

In August, a campaign group launched “Operation Raise the Colours,” which advocates displaying the Union Flag and St George’s Cross in public places, including tying flags to lamp posts and painting them onto mini roundabouts. Supporters say this is to promote patriotism.

The campaign gained significant attention on social media when councils – including Tower Hamlets and Birmingham – began tearing them down. It has also found support from political party members across the political spectrum, including the Conservative Party, Reform UK, and the Labour Party.

Operation Raise the Colours was launched in August (Image: Getty)

In August, Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch slammed the move by the councils as “shameful”. Writing in the Daily Mail, Ms Badenoch said the flying of English flags should be “welcomed”, rather than “seen as an act of rebellion”.

“After years of politicisation by those who seek to diminish England’s culture and Christian heritage, it is encouraging to see English flags flown proudly as symbols of unity, nationhood and optimism,” she said.

She continued: “Suppressing the English flag does not stop division. It fuels it.”

Ms Maskell told The Sun she is trying to “build unity and not division” following racist incidents in York.

Leftie Labour MP Says Her ‘Stomach Churned’ When She Saw English Flags Being Waved

A political row has erupted over the display of English flags after a Labour MP reportedly described her reaction to seeing them waved as making her “stomach churn”. The remark has reignited debate over patriotism, national identity and whether displays of the St George’s Cross have become unfairly associated with far-right politics.

For critics, the controversy raises a fundamental question: should people who proudly display England’s national flag have to defend their patriotism? For others, the discussion reflects wider concerns about the way national symbols can be used at political demonstrations and the messages that particular displays may communicate.

The argument comes amid continuing disagreements about immigration, national identity and the direction of British politics. Reform UK and other political movements have increasingly placed national sovereignty and patriotism at the centre of their public messaging, while Labour has sought to present itself as a party that can unite communities across the country.

However, the precise context of the MP’s reported remark is important. Without a verified name, the full quotation and details of the occasion, it would be misleading to assume that she objected to every display of the English flag or that her comments represented Labour’s official position.

Why the English Flag Has Become a Political Flashpoint

The St George’s Cross is England’s national flag and has a long history in sporting, civic and cultural life. It is commonly displayed during international football tournaments, national celebrations and local events. For many people, it represents family, community, national pride and a sense of belonging.

Yet the flag can also appear at political demonstrations, where its meaning may be influenced by the slogans, organisations and circumstances surrounding its use. Some far-right groups have used national symbols to promote exclusionary messages, contributing to disputes about whether such symbols are being used to express inclusive patriotism or a narrower political identity.

That distinction is important. The use of a national flag does not, by itself, establish that someone holds extremist views. Millions of people display the St George’s Cross without endorsing any political movement. Equally, national symbols can be appropriated by groups seeking to associate patriotism with particular political demands.

The challenge is to assess the context rather than assume that the flag has one fixed political meaning.

A Row About Patriotism and Political Identity

The reported comment has the potential to resonate because national identity has become an increasingly prominent subject in British political debate.

Supporters of displaying the English flag argue that it should be an ordinary expression of national pride. They point to the way other countries routinely display their national flags in public spaces, at sporting events and during national celebrations. From this perspective, treating the English flag as inherently controversial risks making ordinary patriotism appear suspicious.

Critics of certain flag-waving demonstrations, meanwhile, argue that context matters. Where flags are displayed alongside inflammatory slogans or rhetoric targeting minority communities, opponents may interpret the display as part of a wider political message rather than a neutral celebration of England.

Both arguments point towards the same underlying issue: people can attach different meanings to the same symbol.

A flag displayed outside a football ground may communicate support for the national team. The same flag at a political rally may be intended to communicate a position on immigration, sovereignty or government policy. Its meaning cannot always be determined by the fabric alone.

The Pressure on Labour

Labour faces a difficult political environment in which questions of national identity and immigration are closely connected to debates about public confidence and belonging.

The party has sought to appeal to voters who want effective border management, strong public services and a sense that the government is acting in the national interest. At the same time, Labour has emphasised the importance of challenging discrimination and maintaining social cohesion.

A controversy over the English flag can therefore become a broader test of how the party communicates its understanding of patriotism. If voters believe Labour representatives are dismissive of national symbols, the party may face criticism from people who regard those symbols as an important part of their identity.

But a single reported comment should not automatically be treated as evidence of the position of the entire party. Political representatives can express personal views, respond to particular incidents or criticise the way a symbol is used in a specific setting. The details matter.

For Labour, the key question is whether its representatives can distinguish between legitimate national pride and the use of patriotic imagery to promote hostility towards others.

Nigel Farage and Reform UK’s Opportunity

Nigel Farage and Reform UK have made national identity, immigration and sovereignty prominent parts of their political message. Disputes over national flags can provide the party with an opportunity to argue that established political figures are disconnected from the concerns and cultural attachments of some voters.

Farage has repeatedly presented Reform as a party willing to challenge what it describes as the political establishment’s reluctance to discuss immigration, integration and national identity directly. In that political framework, a controversial comment about the English flag can be used to support a wider argument about whether mainstream politicians understand the electorate.

However, the significance of such a dispute depends on the original words and their context. If a politician criticised the use of a flag at a particular demonstration, that would be different from objecting to the English flag itself. Omitting that distinction could turn a specific disagreement into a misleading generalisation.

Reform’s interpretation of the controversy should therefore be considered alongside the full remarks and the circumstances in which they were made.

Can Patriotism Be Inclusive?

One of the central questions raised by the dispute is whether national pride and social inclusion can coexist.

For many people, the answer is straightforward. They see no contradiction between celebrating England, displaying the St George’s Cross and supporting equal rights for people from different backgrounds. They regard national identity as something that can unite people through shared institutions, history, culture and civic responsibilities.

Others worry that patriotic symbols can be used to draw a line between people who are considered to belong and those who are portrayed as outsiders. Their concern is not necessarily with the flag itself but with the political language and behaviour that sometimes accompany it.

These different interpretations need not lead to the conclusion that one side owns the symbol and the other has no legitimate place in the debate.

A person can display the English flag without endorsing far-right politics. A person can also criticise a demonstration that uses the flag without necessarily rejecting England or English identity. The relevant evidence is what people say and do, not simply whether they approve of a particular symbol.

Why the Exact Words Matter

Political controversies often spread rapidly when a short quotation is presented without the surrounding conversation. An emotionally striking phrase can become the focus of public anger, while the explanation or qualification that followed it receives less attention.

That is why the original interview, speech or social media post is important in this case. Establishing what the MP actually said, what prompted the remark and whether she was referring to the flag generally or to a particular event would help clarify the dispute.

It would also be necessary to distinguish a personal reaction from a policy position. Expressing discomfort about a specific demonstration does not automatically amount to a proposal to restrict the display of the national flag.

Without that context, claims about what the MP believes or what Labour intends to do would go beyond the available information.

A Wider Debate About England’s Future

The controversy illustrates how seemingly simple symbols can become entangled with larger political arguments about immigration, community relations and national sovereignty.

For some voters, the English flag represents a feeling that national identity deserves greater recognition in public life. For others, the concern is how patriotic symbols are used and whether public demonstrations make minority communities feel excluded. Political leaders face the challenge of addressing those concerns without treating national pride and social inclusion as mutually exclusive.

The most productive discussion would focus on the distinction between a symbol and the conduct associated with it. People should be able to display England’s flag peacefully without being presumed to hold extremist views. At the same time, political movements should be judged on their actual statements, policies and actions when national symbols are used to promote hostility or discrimination.

For Labour, the reported remark creates questions about political communication and how its representatives approach national identity. For Reform UK, it offers an opportunity to challenge the language of established parties. For the public, the controversy is a reminder that the meaning of a political statement can change significantly when its context is removed.

Ultimately, the English flag belongs to no single political party. Its meaning is shaped by the people who display it and the circumstances in which it appears. A serious debate about patriotism should allow room for national pride, honest criticism and equal respect for everyone who calls England home.