
We should be plastering the St George's Cross all over Britain, not pulling it down
The seismic demographic change raises profound questions over what it means to be British, and whether the scale of immigration (both legal and illegal) is slowly but steadily eroding our identity. What was once a source of British pride – widespread tolerance and even celebration of cultural differences – is giving way to very different feelings over changes that have begun to feel like a threat.
In Alum Rock and many places like it, churches are in danger of becoming redundant – Saltley Methodist Church, a building estate agents describe as a 'striking example of early 20th-century ecclesiastical architecture', is up for auction, while St Matthew's has been turned into a 'business centre' – and replaced by mosques. In communities such as this, Islamic courts are often used to resolve disputes, earning the UK a reputation as the 'Western capital' for sharia law.
Of course, this is still England: the point is that it neither looks nor feels like the country older generations know.
The extent to which growing public angst about these huge cultural shifts is born of 'xenophobia' is a hot debate, but it is very real – as evidenced by a new grass-roots movement to promote British flags.
In what looks very much like the beginning of a cultural fightback, up and down the country, activists have been turning lamp posts into flagpoles and painting flags on roundabouts. Tagged 'Operation Raise the Colours' on social media, the spontaneous flag-hoisting, which began in Birmingham, appears to be going nationwide, even reaching the predominantly black, Asian and minority ethnic London borough of Tower Hamlets.
Stupidly, councils in affected areas are busying themselves pulling down the flags. What madness! It is the worst possible reaction, encapsulating the mess we are in. As fearful authorities in Birmingham and London tear down our own symbols of civic pride, Palestinian flags (theoretically illegal in public places, without express permission, because the UK does not recognise Palestine as a country) continue to fly high. Watching public bodies bending over backwards to respect cultures and identities other than our own, voters despair.
Why can't our leaders see that the raising of British flags is not an act of aggression, but a cri de coeur from a 'native' population that feels subordinated and unheard? Instead of panicking, why don't they lean in, seizing the opportunity to remind anyone who might be 'offended' the name of the country in which they have chosen to live?
It is now 20 years since Tony Blair began retreating from the monster he and his party unwittingly created when they put multiculturalism at the heart of their policy agenda. Reeling from the terror attacks of July 7 2005, the largest mass casualty event in the UK since the Second World War, Blair issued a kind of rallying cry for our country. In a speech that overturned decades of Labour ideology, he warned immigrants they had a 'duty' to integrate, and told them they should adopt our values – or stay away.
What actually happened in the two decades that followed was the reverse. Successive prime ministers continued to allow vast numbers of foreign nationals to move here with little to no requirement to embrace, or even respect, our way of life and norms.
No wonder the white working classes, who have been most disadvantaged by the influx, and many others who continue to believe that our culture and values are superior to those in very different parts of the world, are feeling mutinous.
On TikTok and Facebook, in pubs and social clubs, and at kitchen tables up and down the land, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people who have never wanted anything to do with politics share their private despair and ruminate over what is to be done. Raising British flags – whether the Union flag or the St George's Cross or other national flags – seems a civilised way to push back.
Instead of trying to undo it all, politicians should read the room and actively support this peaceful reaffirmation of who we are. Places like Alum Rock demonstrate the case for going further. It is not the British flags but Palestinian ones that should be removed. Following in Denmark's footsteps, the flying of foreign flags should be banned altogether.
Be in no doubt: the mood of the country is precarious. It is time to put down a marker, and remind everyone where they are.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
4 minutes ago
- Telegraph
We may be facing the dotcom bubble 2.0
It was the sort of windfall Rachel Reeves, Britain's beleaguered Chancellor, would die for. Its bounty exceeded all expectations. The new century had only just been seen in and the atmosphere in financial markets was one of high excitement and riotous celebration. At Davos that January, the corridors were filled with the sound of what was then a relatively new phenomenon – a veritable cacophony of mobile phone ringtones. To be seen without the latest Nokia glued to one's ear was to be a backwards-looking outcast from modernity. Investors were making money as never before and there seemed to be no problem so great, no affliction so disabling, that the tech revolution of the day could not solve. It was a time of great promise, exaggerated expectations and hope for the future as globalisation and technological advancement swept all before them. But it also marked the exact zenith of the TMT (technology, media and telecoms) bubble. Before the year was out, more or less everyone who was at that meeting was nursing crippling losses. Few things better characterised the 'irrational exuberance' of the age than the auctions of 3G mobile phone licences that took place around that time. Cleverly structured using game theory to maximise proceeds for the presiding governments, they were almost guaranteed to end badly – none more so than in Britain where, in the scramble for spectrum, newcomers and incumbents alike ended up massively overpaying. It was great for the Treasury, which raised an astonishing £22.5bn from the five licences on offer. What Reeves, with an estimated hole of up to £50bn in the public finances to fill, would give for something similar. Yet it was close to catastrophic for the winners. British Telecom and the like were lucky to survive the following bust. The accompanying dotcom bubble also ended in tears, as all stock market manias invariably do. But this time is different, right? So the high priests of the latest mania – generative artificial intelligence and its progeny, superintelligence – would have you believe. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being poured into their pursuit. If the claims being made about the transformative powers of the new technologies sound familiar, that's because we have indeed heard it all before. Exactly the same was said of the internet. The predictions were not wrong in some respects. The resulting boom in communications infrastructure proved genuinely transformative. But the services it spawned also very rapidly became commoditised and the outright winners were confined to a relatively small number of very large corporations. Along the way, there were many casualties. This is the pattern for virtually all emerging technological revolutions. By way of example, take the birth of the automotive industry. At one stage there were more than 2,000 separate car manufacturers in the US, but only a relatively small number of them lasted the distance. You would have lost money on the vast majority of these ventures – and even if you had invested in all of them, the gains from the winners would not have compensated for the losses from those that fell by the wayside. But even among those with a deep understanding of the industries involved, successfully identifying the eventual winners from rapid industrial change is virtually impossible, so the tendency is to invest in the entire field in the hope that some come good. The result is a self-feeding bubble in which almost any Tom, Dick or Harry can ride the zeitgeist and attract capital. We saw it during the dotcom mania and we are seeing it again today. As an amusing aside, the stock market guru Warren Buffett once observed that it is much easier to spot the losers from any transformative technology than it is the winners. One obvious loser from the automotive revolution was the horse and cart. There were 20 million horses in the US at the beginning of the 20th century. Today, there are fewer than four million and very few of those are kept for pulling wagons. With AI, it is similarly possible to see which industries and professions are likely to be destroyed by it, with anything to do with conventional data analytics being only the most obvious. As for likely winners, it is admittedly a little bit different this time, in that the companies pouring the big bucks into AI are substantially the same as the winners from the preceding IT revolution – Microsoft, Meta, Alphabet, Apple, Amazon and so on. Even so, the potential for extreme misallocation of capital remains much the same. All these companies are driven by a winner-takes-all mentality. Few of them foresee a world in which they can all succeed. The result is a kind of arms race, or a game of poker in which the stakes are constantly raised. All the main players are dramatically ramping up their capital spending with plans for ever bigger, hyperscale data centres. Microsoft has earmarked $80bn (£59bn) for data centres to train AI models and Meta's year-to-date capital spending has already topped $30bn. Going all in, analysts expect Meta's Mark Zuckerberg to sink a further $100bn into the AI gold rush next financial year. Similarly, Alphabet in the first two quarters of its financial year recorded $40bn of capital spending. See you and raise you another $20bn, says Amazon, which spent nearly $60bn. So craven has the hunt for top AI talent become, OpenAI boss Sam Altman said recently that members of his team had been getting offers of more than $100m as 'signing bonuses' from Meta. Piggybacking on the new infrastructure are thousands of AI-related start-ups and Johnny-come-lately chancers, all jostling for a share of the action. The hype is off the scale – but there are already unnerving signs of things falling short of the lofty expectations invested in them. According to a recent survey by MIT's Networked Agents and Decentralised AI (Nanda) initiative, only about 5pc of AI pilot programmes applied at company level achieve meaningful results in terms of enhanced revenues and profits. Yet such findings have not yet deterred investors. Some two thirds of the shares in the S&P 500 trade at 30 times earnings or more, and one third at 50 or more. These are the sort of valuations we saw at the height of the dotcom bubble and they require positively heroic levels of future growth to bring them back down to trend. Other measures show a similar level of overvaluation. My thanks to Davide Serra, of Algebris Investments, for drawing my attention to the following shocker. The market capitalisation of the tech-heavy Nasdaq has rocketed during the bull market of the last 15 years to 145pc of the US's entire M2 money supply, which is even higher than it was just before the dotcom crash.


BBC News
4 minutes ago
- BBC News
Dozens more Afghan relocation data breaches uncovered by BBC
The Ministry of Defence has admitted there have been 49 separate data breaches in the past four years at the unit handling relocation applications from Afghans seeking safety in the out of the 49 breaches were already publicly known - including the leak in 2022 of a spreadsheet containing details of almost 19,000 people fleeing the mammoth data breach, which led to thousands of Afghans being secretly relocated to the UK, was only revealed last month after the High Court lifted a gagging was described by the UK's information watchdog as a "one-off occurrence following a failure to [follow] usual checks, rather than reflecting a wider culture of non-compliance". However, lawyers representing Afghans affected by data breaches said the new figures, released to the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act, raised concerns about a culture of lax security among those working on the resettlement MoD has refused to provide any details of the nature of each breach but incidents which have previously been made public include officials inadvertently revealing the email addresses or other personal details of applicants to third Malik, Head of Data Protection at Barings Law which represents hundreds of Afghans affected by the biggest of the breaches in February 2022, said: "What began as an isolated incident, which the Ministry of Defence initially sought to keep from public view, has now escalated into a series of catastrophic failings."We urge the Ministry of Defence to be fully transparent with both those affected and the wider public. Victims should not be forced to learn the truth through legal action or news reports."The Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) was set up in April 2021 to help people who feared their lives were at risk because they had worked with British armed forces in Afghanistan and to resettle eligible applicants and their family members in the UK. It was closed in July this scheme has been dogged by revelations about poor data security, potentially putting the lives of Afghans who worked with British forces at risk. In September 2021, BBC News revealed that more than 250 Afghans seeking relocation to the UK were mistakenly copied into an email from the Ministry of Defence, putting them at risk of reprisals.A total of 265 email addresses were shared in this way across three separate incidents that month, which ultimately led to a £350,000 fine from the breaches were "intensely difficult and embarrassing for the government handling publicly", one defence source Wallace, the then-defence secretary, expressed his personal anger at what had occurred, telling MPs: "I am very keen that it is not just the poor person who drafts the email who is held to account, but the chain upwards, to ensure that this does not happen again."Two months after the incidents, in November 2021, the then Conservative government announced "significant remedial actions", including new data handling procedures and training as well as a new "two pairs of eyes rule" requiring any external email to an ARAP-eligible Afghan national be reviewed by a second member of staff before being government said the measures were taken to "prevent such incidents occurring again".Instead, data breaches continued including, in February 2022, a potentially catastrophic leak which saw a soldier at Regent's Park barracks send a spreadsheet with what they believed to be a small number of applicants' names to trusted Afghan did not realise that hidden data in the spreadsheet in fact contained the names, contact details and some information about family members and associates for nearly 19,000 the leak was discovered some 18 months later, in August 2023, the then-Conservative government sought a gagging order to prevent details of the error being made public. The government successfully argued that lives were at risk and the Taliban would be alerted if an injunction wasn't super injunction which was imposed was not lifted until July this Baines, a senior data protection specialist at the law firm Mishcon de Reya, said the new figures uncovered by the BBC show a "remarkable number of data security incidents in relation to the ARAP scheme"."It is difficult to think of any information more sensitive than that which is involved with the scheme, and it baffles me why there were not better security measures in place," he added. Seven of the 49 data breaches were sufficiently serious to require MoD officials to notify data watchdog the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).This includes three breaches - one in 2021, and two in 2022 - that have not been made public ICO said it was limited in the amount of information it still held on those breaches and why it didn't take further action but that its work with the MoD was "ongoing"."We continue to engage with the MoD, so we can be assured that they have made the required improvements," a spokeswoman watchdog has not taken any action against the MoD over the large spreadsheet data breach which was previously subject to court-imposed reporting restrictions, arguing "there was little we could add in this case that would justify the further allocation of resource away from other priorities".Jon Baines said there were "serious questions firstly as to whether the ICO should have conducted more in-depth investigations previously, and secondly, whether there is now an urgent need for more investigation."What assurance can we all have now that the MoD are properly protecting the highly sensitive personal data it is often entrusted with?", he added.A Labour government source blamed previous Conservative administrations for inadequate data protection measures and said new software has been introduced and other changes made since Labour came to power last year."Current ministers repeatedly highlighted the Tory mismanagement of data around the ARAP scheme while in opposition," the source said."Since last July, we've brought in a host of new measures to improve data security and we've made public the largest Afghan data breach which occurred under the previous government, to allow for parliamentary scrutiny and accountability."A Conservative Party spokesman said: "This data leak should never have happened and was an unacceptable breach of data protection secretary of state for defence has issued an apology on behalf of the government, and Conservatives joined in that apology."When this breach came to light, the immediate priority of the then-government was to protect persons in the dataset."An MoD spokesperson said: "We take data security extremely seriously and are committed to ensuring that any incidents are dealt with properly, and that we follow our legal duties."All incidents that meet the threshold under UK data protection laws are referred to the Information Commissioner's Office, and any lesser incidents are examined internally to ensure lessons are learned."If you have any information on stories you would like to share with the BBC Politics Investigations team, please get in touch at politicsinvestigations@ Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.


Telegraph
4 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Planet Normal: Bringing you the best of the Rocket 2025, part 2
On this second of three summer specials of the Planet Normal podcast, which you can listen to using the audio player above, columnists Liam Halligan and Allison Pearson speak to Leader of The Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, who gives her take on Prime Minister, Keir Starmer's, vote of support for the Supreme Court verdict on the definition of 'man' and 'woman' in regards to the Equality Act 2010. Also on the rocket is former Conservative councillor, Ray Connolly - husband of Lucy Connolly, who was sentenced to 31 months for posting a tweet in response to the tragic death of 3 girls in Southport last year. Ray discusses the devastating impact of Lucy's ongoing incarceration on their family.