PETER HITCHENS: Labour’s sneaky rebranding of the nation it secretly hates – Great Britain – is one more step down the staircase of nationwide decline

Who wants to live in something called ‘The Ukay’? I certainly don’t. This is Britain, or England, or Great Britain.

The ‘United Kingdom’ is what it technically is – its chemical formula if you like – just as a star is technically a ball of flaming gas, but seen from far enough off, it is a small piece of glory.

‘The UK’ it is not what Britain actually is, a living breathing nation – what George Orwell called ‘an everlasting animal stretching into the future and the past, and, like all living things, having the power to change out of recognition and yet remain the same.’

‘England’ or ‘Britain’ (and ‘Scotland’ and ‘Wales’) are proper national names, like ‘France’ or ‘Spain’. ‘The UK’ is a (not wholly accurate) official description of the territory, like the defunct ‘Federated Malay States’ and ‘Central African Federation’.

This week, we learned the Starmer Government is quietly rebranding the country it still secretly hates. Official government communications will now refer to the ‘UK Government’ rather than to ‘HM Government’.

It’s a tiny salami slice, another little piece cut away for ever, too small to spark a parliamentary rebellion or bring about protest marches. But after all these slices have been taken, you will find that the whole sausage has gone, and wonder how it happened, and why you didn’t do anything to save it. So don’t tell me not to make a fuss about small things.

Look at the language in which this decision is explained by the ‘Cabinet Office Minister’. How typical of these times that there should be such a thing – a minister for an office. ‘Guidance has been updated’, says that minister, Mr Nick Thomas-Symonds, ‘to reflect the new Royal Coat of Arms’.

What does this actually mean? Nothing. How can guidance reflect a new coat of arms, especially when it is strikingly similar to the old coat of arms? It is just official gibberish. He added that ‘a strategic decision has been made to adopt “UK Government” as the primary identity for all public-­facing communications’. In other words: ‘We have done it because we want to.’

But why do they want to? Because they instinctively do not like old, traditional things. Only the word ‘strategic’ hints at the truth. This change is part of an unending cultural revolution, in which the former world is wiped out, bit by bit, first by changing the names of everything, then by changing the things themselves, so that the country becomes somewhere else.

The closest parallel to this I can think of is the gradual elimination of the word ‘husband’ from official documents. This change, not yet complete, has accompanied the gradual removal of the idea that children can normally be expected to have fathers. Even married people now often refer to their ‘partners’. This is not the first outbreak of the ‘UK’ problem. I recall being nettled during Sir Anthony Blair’s Iraq war, by seeing on TV a British naval officer, clad ridiculously in desert camouflage, which would have made him very conspicuous at sea, introduced as a spokesman for ‘the UK Navy’.

‘It’s the Royal Navy!’ I shouted ineffectually at the screen. I am fairly sure that, eventually, it will become the ‘UK Navy’, so that it can better fulfil its main function of limping along in the wake of the US Navy. And its ships will cease to be His Majesty’s (HMS), and become UK ships (UKS), more like the American formula of USS. This will at least make life easier for the growing number of dimwits who refer (for instance) to ‘the’ HMS Prince of Wales – presumably because they do not know what HMS stands for.

I claim to have become, back in 2010, the first person to use the mocking term ‘Ukay’ when I asked: ‘When did this country turn into the Ukay?’

I grew up in Britain, and quite a lot of people my age grew up in England. I favoured Britain because my earliest memories were of Scotland, and I have always had a great fondness for that country and its people, and quite see why they are annoyed when their special character is forgotten. It was the British Army, the British constitution, the British climate, the British way of doing things. I seldom if ever heard anyone mention the ‘Ukay’. Now spelled ‘Yookay’, it has become a common jeer among the young at our failing nation, not especially united and a kingdom only in name.

You could also have seen this coming back in July 2021, when what was then still Her Majesty’s Government told the UN that we were changing our ‘international vehicle registration identifier’ from ‘GB’ to ‘UK’.

Apparently, this was supposed to make Northern Ireland happy, but since so many of the Province’s people carry Irish passports, and locally issued driving licences do not feature the Union Jack in case it upsets someone, I cannot see this helping much.

For me, it is just another step down the staircase of decline. When we were great, and even when we were just respected, subjects of His Britannic Majesty the King set off across the Channel to tour the European continent in solid, powerful British-built motor cars. Bentleys, Alvises, Rileys, Humbers and MGs all in British Racing Green, their bonnets often held down with leather straps, bearing black and silver metal plates proudly proclaiming their origin as ‘GB’.

Now we are citizens and have plastic stickers on foreign-made vehicles, saying we come from ‘the Ukay’. Well, I don’t. But how much longer will I be able to tell myself this? The Tories have promised to reverse the change, the first chance they get. But will they get the chance? And will they keep the promise? Forgive me if I harbour doubts.

Oddly, we are also told by an official spokesman the change does not affect the use of ‘His Majesty’s Government’. I can’t see how it can fail to do so, and I will watch future announcements with care.

I have long disliked and suspected the recent practice of placing Union Jacks on either side of the Prime Minister when he speaks. He is the head of government, not the head of state, and he speaks for the government, not for the nation.

I still think it is an important distinction, as – among other things – it discourages prime ministers from getting too big for their boots, as Sir Anthony Blair very much did, posing with troops whenever he could and plainly yearning for the powers and privileges of an American president.

For me, this is the real purpose of monarchy – to prevent politicians from muscling in on the grand, ceremonial, magical parts of power. I don’t want to see politicians riding in state coaches, or waving from balconies, or welcoming foreign potentates, or taking the salute at parades, escorted by military and naval officers in full gold braid. I want them always to remember that it is not their government, but His Majesty’s.