By stewartb – a long read

In early July this year and following elections to the European Parliament, we learned of the formation of a new alliance of far-right MEPs. The group chose for its name ‘Patriots for Europe’. (See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp9vre72wpdo)

‘Patriotism’ has become a much favoured characteristic recently. In April this year, Keir Starmer (20 April 2024) wrote a piece for The Telegraph – long known as the Conservatives’ de facto house journal – below the headline: ‘Labour is now the true party of English patriotism’. Are we all ‘patriots’ now?

It’s notable how much attention Labour Party-supporting organisations give to ‘patriotism’. Firstly there are multiple articles appearing in LabourList, the organisation which ‘provides the leading dedicated forum for authoritative news, insightful analysis and robust debate about the Labour Party across the UK.’ (See https://labourlist.org/search/patriotism/ )  Here are the titles of articles published over the past three years:

• ‘Patriotism should not be Labour’s sore point. Let’s create our own narrative’ – by Dan Jarvis, Labour MP and currently Minister of State for Security;
• ‘This is what our patriotism looks like’ – by Lisa Nandy, Labour MP and currently Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport;
• ‘Lisa Nandy to outline how patriotism would shape Labour’s foreign policy’ – by Sienna Rodgers;
• ‘Patriotism’s foundations are timeless, but the future is Labour’s to build’ – by Joe Jervis;
• ‘How the British left could learn from the patriotism of French socialists’ – by Stephane Savary.

It’s beyond the scope of this blog post to provide a synopsis far less an assessment of all of the above but here is just a glimpse. The article by Dan Jarvis, written in 2021, begins by asking: ‘Have you received any ‘Happy St. George’s Day’ messages yet? Are you doing anything to mark the occasion?’ Four short paragraphs later and Jarvis’ argument has morphed from a concern about symbols of Englishness. He writes:  ‘Like it or not, if Labour is going to win back what we lost and form a government again, we will have to prove we are the party that willstand up for Britain.’ (my emphasis)

Having started off concerned about St George’s Day, his subsequent emphasis on ‘Britain’ throughout much of the article is to say the least a non-sequitur!  But after multiple references to ‘Britain’ and without a break in step, the author then offers this helpful explanation: ‘The simplest way I can describe my beliefs is this: I love my country and its people, but I know we can be so much better. I’m extremely proud of being English and of our traditions, but I don’t believe our political and economic settlement is delivering for the working-class. Much of the so-called ‘Red Wall’ feels the same and nobody in the labour movement should feel ashamed to agree.’ From England’s St George to events explicitly linked to ‘Britain’ – to the Union – to a challenge for Labour in UK parliamentary elections and back to English patriotism in easy moves!

The article by Jo Jervis contains similar ‘fluidity’. He writes:  ‘… how on earth could any party possibly think it can earn the right to lead a country it doesn’t appear to love and believe in? A Labour Party that believes passionately in the British state as a force for good, at home and abroad, should be viewed not as remotely controversial but utterly essential.’

And on Labour becoming patriotic, Jervis then explains: ’The more important questions are centred on what comes next. A common response ….. from sceptics has been to accept the recommendations with a caveat: this is fine, as long as Labour gets to shape how patriotism is defined. There is an awful lot of merit in this argument – and it is reflective of the English Labour Network’s work to help shape the more inclusive, civic sense of shared English identity that is emerging.’

From a concern for ‘the British state’ to patriotism and ‘English identity’ in a seamless transition. And following the reference to this ‘English identity’ we’re told: ’… using symbols like the flag, combined with plugging into the news agenda, will prove every bit as effective as any big vision speech. Keir (Starmer)  is making progress. His commitment to making Britain “the best place to grow up in and the best place to grow old in” should be repeated ad nauseum between now and the next election – a fantastic framing for future policy.’  Even from a North British (viewpoint) it must be hard to keep track of the shifts!

Stephane Savary in the article looking to France notes: ‘Patriotism has always been a difficult subject for the British left. Too often, it is seen as a vulgar form of nationalism. Whilst they claim that there is no form of patriotism that can be progressive and claim that patriotism is inherently a right-wing concept, most working men and women in our heartland see patriotism as the love they feel for their land, their work, their towns and their families. Patriotism is more than just flag-waving and God Save the Queen. It is part of the community’s spirit, of which we are all proud and makes this country unique for most of us. No, being a patriot does not make you a racist or white supremacist.’  In short, ‘patriotism’ can be transformed into whatever Labour ‘thinkers’ wish it to be.

And from another Labour Party supporter, the Fabian Society we find the following published articles (see https://fabians.org.uk/?s=patriotism ):

• The left’s uneasy relationship with patriotism – and why it should still celebrate British Culture (16 July, 2014) – by Lise Butler.
• Labour and the nation (6 October, 2016) – by Ben Jackson 
• Socialism and patriotism in a time of crisis  (1 February, 2021) – by Paul Richards
• Local heroes (9 July 2021) – by Marc Stears
• Losing sides – Labour needs to embrace both internationalism and patriotism if it is to rebuild after electoral disaster (8 January, 2020) – by Chris Clarke
• Three Lions? The three ways Labour must win England (17 July 2017) –  by John Denham.

In Butler’s account we find this: ’As the historian Miles Taylor shows, for Edwardian left-liberals like J.A. Hobson, patriotism was synonymous with ‘jingoism’ but then ‘in the 1930s and during the second world war thinkers on the left began to explore a different brand of patriotism based not on pride in the central state, but on a conscious embrace of Britain’s democratic traditions and institutions. For Orwell during the second world war Britishness – or more precisely, Englishness – was worthy of celebration because English cultural institutions were not uniform or orchestrated, but plural and rooted in an ongoing struggle for democracy.’  Englishness, Britishness – a longstanding denial of any distinction.

Richards discusses Orwell’s book The Lion and the Unicorn written at the height of the Second World War and of the threat to the UK from Hitler’s Germany. He notes: ‘The first part, England Your England, is Orwell’s attempt to describe the English character, culture and temperament. Robert Colls, a recent Orwell biographer, calls it ‘the best few hundred words on English national identity ever written’. To co-opt the people’s patriotism to his revolutionary ends, he must first define it, and describe an England worth fighting for.’

Richard’s adds: ’… Orwell’s central critique – (is) that Britain is losing the war because of the idiots in charge. England is, in the famous and enduring phrase, ‘a family with the wrong members in control’.’

In Part three of Orwell’s book entitled The English Revolution, the author of this Fabian Society article acknowledges: ‘As ever, Orwell imperiously uses ‘England’ to mean both England itself, and also at times the United Kingdom.’

Explaining further, Richards notes: ‘By disentangling patriotism, a love for one’s country, from nationalism, a hatred for other people’s countries, Orwell showed how it can be a progressive force, and avoid the dead end of xenophobia.’ Is this why Labour-supporting and other Unionists work so hard, so disingenuously, to convince (themselves?) that supporters of Scotland’s independence – the kind of folk that support TuS – ‘hate the people of England’s country’?

The article by Marc Stears gives this insight into the current Labour leadership: ‘..  there are several senior figures who worry that the fall of the ‘Red Wall’ in the 2019 general election, indicates that Labour now faces a historic choice: it can carry on espousing an internationalist ideal, replete with cultural liberalism – as it has for the last few decades – and slide into electoral oblivion or it can shift back towards a more explicitly patriotic, even nationalist, story and compete again for those voters who identify with more traditional, socially conservative values.’ And Stears observes this about Keir Starmer: ‘the Union flag has started to appear in the background of his video addresses and the rhetoric of his speeches is now chock-full of the legacy of Captain Tom Moore, the second world war and the Attlee government of 1945.’

In his Fabian article Jackson writes: ’…. the concurrent rise of Celtic nationalisms in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland dramatically highlighted the extent to which the ‘British’ patriotism of the 1940s elided Britishness and Englishness and underplayed the character of Britain as a multi-national polity.’ ‘Elided’ – i.e. to join different things together as if they are the same: this is not just a feature of mid-twentieth century UK history, it is still a thing today!

Some at least of this recent Labour focus on – (obsession with?) –  ‘patriotism’ links back to John Denham who on 8 October 2016 had an article published by the Fabian Society entitled ‘Progressive patriotism’. Denham was Labour MP for Southampton from 1992 to 2015 and served as Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills from 2007 to 2009 and Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government from 2009 to 2010. Wikipedia notes that Denham is director of the English Labour Network and a Professorial Fellow on English Identity and Politics at Southampton University.

On the outcome of the 2016 EU referendum Denham argues: ‘… it was, primarily, those voters who most strongly identified as English who were the main supporters of Brexit.’ In looking to Labour’s future election prospects, he adds: ’My argument is that the only way we can now build that majority is to find ways of marrying the politics of identity and nationhood with our traditional concern to hold the powerful to account and to build a society that works for all. In short, the centre left has to become the champion of a progressive patriotism.’

He goes on: ’We want our nations to be defined not just by individual achievement and aspiration but by our common bonds and our responsibilities towards each other and the values we share. That what defines a patriot is their acceptance that the common good defines a good society; and that we each do better for ourselves and our families in a society where we look after each other.’ To his credit, Denham at least uses ‘nations’ plural here.

However, Denham back then could not resist a slur: ‘When I read of the poor performance of Scottish schools under the SNP I wonder what sort of patriot neglects young working class Scots. What sort of nationalist puts the drive for independence above the generation that is the future of the nation.’  Any ‘credit’ immediately extinguished by this nonsense!

Denham concludes: ’The divergent strands are also apparent in rise in expressed English identity – not just in the numbers saying ‘I am English or primarily English but more importantly in the intensity of feeling English. The sense of Englishness is increasingly felt in politics. We saw it in Brexit.  But saw it in the 2015 general election. And in wider discussion – shipyards (sic).’

He adds: ’There is a growing awareness that the interests of England and the interests of Britain; the interests of England and the interests of the Union; are not the same.’ And yet if Denham is correct, it was the ‘interests’ of England and this ‘intensity of feeling English’ expressed in the referendum of 2016 which overwhelmed the will of a majority of Scotland’s (and NI’s) people to remain within the EU. This from Denham (quoted earlier) takes on a different significance in this context: ‘We want our nations to be defined not just by individual achievement and aspiration but by our common bonds and our responsibilities towards each other and the values we share’!

End note

You may have noticed at the beginning of this blog post the juxtaposition of a reference to the formation of the far right ‘Patriots for Europe’ grouping in the European Parliament to a reference to Labour’s Keir Starmer and his English patriotism. ‘Was this not an unwarranted attempt to smear by association, a slur by implying equivalence?’ – some may ask.

On 25 June 2019 the Fabian Society published the transcript of a speech by Labour’s Gordon Brown entitled ‘Combatting the far-right – In a major intervention co-hosted by the Fabian Society and Hope not Hate, former prime minister Gordon Brown called for unity and warned of the dangers of ‘narrow nationalism.’

It takes no time at all for the ‘far-right’ focus of the speech to shift to Scotland. Brown opens with: ‘Noticeable by its absence – even as we enter the third week of the contest as to who is to be our Prime Minister – is any serious debate on the existential question facing the United Kingdom: whether it can survive? I believe the Union is today more at risk than at any time in 300 years – and more in danger than when we had to fight for it in 2014 during a bitter Scottish referendum.’

And shortly after the speech shifts to this: ‘In our long history the overwhelming majority have prided ourselves in being patriots who love our country – not bitter nationalists who hate our neighbours, demonise foreigners, immigrants or other minorities and blame external forces for everything that goes wrong.’ Adding: ’You can embrace a broad patriotism without subscribing to a narrow nationalism.’

‘Scotland’ is mentioned 13 times and the SNP 9 times – never in positive terms – in Brown’s speech (supposedly) about ‘Combatting the far-right’! And in amongst his references to Scotland he writes: ‘I want to argue specifically against the hijacking of patriotism by Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson – a political deception that has tried to present an act of economic self-harm – a no deal Brexit on October 31st – as a patriotic act.’

Now this speech IS a prime example – a blatant example – of an attempt to smear by association, a deliberate, unwarranted and unworthy attempt to imply equivalence. And here it’s being perpetrated by a revered figure in the Labour Party. (If memory serves, this is not a unique example of the tactic.) Candidly, based on such a political contrivance, this is someone who will richly deserve his place amongst the ‘parcel of rogues’ that have blighted our nation’s history.