How Britain Is Trying to Avoid America's Patriotism Problem
U.K. Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. Licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0 : CC by 2.0 by Simon Dawson : No 10 Downing Street
"Britain is a nation proudly built on tolerance, diversity and respect. Our flag represents our diverse country and we will never surrender it to those that use it as a symbol of violence, fear and division."
With those decisive words, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer this past weekend did more than just condemn a far-right protest; he staked a powerful claim in a global political struggle. Starmer’s statements followed the massive September 13, 2025 protest in London, which was organized by far-right activist Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. The demonstration, one of the largest in decades, attracted over 100,000 people and led to clashes with police, resulting in injuries to 26 officers and at least 25 arrests. The event, which centered on anti-immigration and nationalist themes, has since sparked renewed debate in the UK about national identity, immigration, and free speech.
Starmer’s pronouncement was born from growing pressure from his own party to speak out and perhaps a clear-eyed study of the American experience. He has likely watched, as the American flag has been the subject of a silent, yet profound, coup. Once a symbol of shared national identity of the American people, it has been co-opted and weaponized by a specific strain of right-wing nationalism. Where it once stood for liberty and justice for all, it now, for many, signifies a narrow, nativist ideology. In the past decade, the American flag has been ubiquitous at rallies where democratic norms were questioned, expertise rejected, and immigrants vilified. In response, a significant portion of American liberals and moderates have retreated, ceding the ground of patriotism altogether. They have, in a sense, made the understandable but profoundly dangerous choice to turn their backs on the flag.
Starmer has watched this tragedy unfold and understood a fundamental truth that his American counterparts failed to see: that a nation cannot allow its most powerful symbols to be monopolized by a single faction. When he declared that Britain would “never surrender” its flag, he wasn't just condemning a far-right protest; he was launching a pre-emptive strike to reclaim a symbol of national unity. His insistence that the flag “represents our diverse country” is a direct and forceful counter-narrative to the ideology of division.
This is where the failure of the political center and the left in America becomes so glaringly apparent. In their retreat from the flag, they did more than just avoid a symbolic fight. They allowed the far right to claim a monopoly on patriotism itself, empowering them to frame all opposition as un-American. This strategic blunder has had devastating consequences, creating a chasm where a common national identity once was. By leaving the flag to the political right, the Democratic coalition inadvertently gave them a potent tool for delegitimizing dissent and eroding the very foundations of democracy.
Starmer, by contrast, seems to recognize that a democracy cannot function when its citizens no longer share the same symbols, the same sense of a collective “we.” He understands that to stand for a nation’s highest values—tolerance, diversity, and respect—one must also be willing to stand for its symbols. His move is a powerful assertion that patriotism is not the exclusive domain of any one political group but is, in fact, the very duty of every citizen who believes in their country. He is showing that it is not enough to simply reject the politics of hate; one must also actively fight for the symbols that represent the values of an inclusive, pluralistic society. It is a lesson in leadership, a demonstration of what is required when a nation’s identity is on the line.