X Close

Why has the English flag become so toxic?

‘There is now a serious and fundamental divide between the national and post-national visions of Britain.’ Credit: Getty

‘There is now a serious and fundamental divide between the national and post-national visions of Britain.’ Credit: Getty

20 June 2026 - 8:00am

Memory is a trickster, but I am quite sure that when I was growing up, in the Eighties and Nineties, it was extremely unusual to see individual houses flying the Union Jack or the St George’s Cross. You might see a few more during big football tournaments, especially on cars and vans, but it just didn’t happen, by and large. This was a noticeable difference not only from the United States, but also from several other European nations.

The reasons for this are fascinating, and complicated. I don’t entirely buy the Centrist Dad idea that British patriotism is inherently understated and undemonstrative, and that more robust displays of national pride are out of character. Coronations, jubilees, royal weddings, and celebrations of martial victories have all seen huge amounts of enthusiastic flag-waving. But it is clearly true that permanent displays of national flags on individual homes or in public places have been rare in Britain until quite recently, except in Northern Ireland.

This has changed. Last summer’s Operation Raise The Colours campaign — which saw Union Jacks and St George’s Crosses displayed on lampposts, bridges and other public infrastructure — was the culmination of a growing trend over the last two decades for more public displays of national flags. There has been considerable pushback — most recently from Oxfordshire County Council, which is apparently seeking new powers to prevent the attachment of flags to street furniture and other public areas. There may be some reasonable arguments for such a position. But the wider and more significant question is why flying the national flag has become so much more common over the course of this century, and why it has become so contentious.

There are two closely linked trends behind this. First is the rapid demographic change that Britain has experienced since 1997. Rallying around the flag, both literally and metaphorically, is a natural reaction from Britons who are opposed to the pace and scale of national transformation. So of course people who support current migration trends, and multiculturalism more generally, will regard flag-waving as an attack on their position. Everyone understands the symbolism involved, even if both sides try to obscure the real meaning of their actions — conservatives by insisting that they are just flying the national flag, so who could possibly object to that, and progressives by dressing up their concerns in the language of public aesthetics or safety.

The second trend is the broader discomfort with the embrace of national self-interest that now marks most elite Britons. Cultural and educational change since the Second World War, and the role of nationalism in causing that conflict, has meant that sincere patriotism has come to be seen as threatening. Anything but the most cautious and hedged enthusiasm for one’s own country is now considered low-status, something engaged in by your ghastly suburban relatives. The recent embrace of national symbols by people who regard the current elites as their enemies is, consciously or not, a reaction against what Roger Scruton called “oikophobia”, an irrational and excessive scepticism of one’s own country and people.

There is now a serious and fundamental divide between the national and post-national visions of Britain, and the public display of flags will continue to be a tangible manifestation of that split, just as it has been in Ulster for many years.


Niall Gooch is a public sector worker and occasional writer who lives in Kent.

niall_gooch

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

1 July 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam