It is no longer possible for Labour to fudge the distinction between British and English and avoid asking who we are. To win back power Labour needs to win a majority in England; a nation where more and more people choose to call themselves English rather than British. We need to make sense of England and understand the rise of national identity politics across Europe, if we’re to forge a new progressive patriotism.

England does not have a history of being conquered, oppressed or exploited (except by our own elites). It is a nation beached by the retreat of Empire and the weakening of the Union, not a product of national independence struggle. England is unique but the decline of the Labour Party, rise of UKIP and the salience of the SNP ‘threat’ are echoed across Europe.

Scandinavia and Germany have seen the rise of populist anti-migrant (and anti EU) parties, not that dissimilar to UKIP. Leftist parties have challenged the established social democrats with distinctly nationalist narratives in Spain and Greece. Syriza and Podemos are frequently explicitly nationalist (and anti German) in their language. And the SNP today occupies the centre left territory that Labour thought of as its own.

Across Europe it is the established social democratic parties that have suffered most from this trend, rather than parties of the centre right. As the mass industrial workforce has largely disappeared, and mass working class politics declined, many people have found an alternative politics of identity in nationalism and populism.

Because many (though by no means all) expressions of the new national identity politics come from the right, the left has often assumed these must be inherently wrong, inherently reactionary, politics. But this is a big mistake. Identity politics are an entirely understandable and, in many ways rational response, to world that seems to offer increasing insecurity and uncertainty and very rapid social, economic and political change.

Throughout history, human beings have grouped together to resist or shape powerful forces. The roots of the labour movement lie in collective action. The argument for joining a trade union was that no one should freeload on the union’s work and no one should be able to undermine union rates. Some sense of collective identity and belonging, some sense of mutual obligation and contribution, is necessary to maintain almost al the institutions – particularly of welfare states – that the left has helped to build and which it values today.

The obvious question is whether today’s rise in English national identity has a progressive potential that can be used to build support for progressive and patriotic politics. Can we imagine an England and an English identity that is a vehicle for progressive change?

National identities are created, not discovered. They draw on our history, but we can also choose to emphasise and develop those elements of our history that are most relevant to the future. (A recent positive example has been the ‘re-discovery’ of the role of Imperial troops in the First and Second World War; a ‘forgotten fact’ that makes it much easier to understand the ethnic diversity of post-war Britain.)

Labour’s challenge is to help develop an inclusive, civic English identity (much in the way that the Scots and the Welsh have more successfully managed). At national level Labour hasn’t engaged in cultural politics for a very long time – arguably not since Roy Jenkin’s advocacy of multiculturalism. But many Labour led towns and cities have an impressive record of place building and place shaping that includes all their citizens. We need to draw on this experience. Nation building has to be a pro-active, conscious process.

We need more than multicultural respect between difference communities: we have to find and share the shared stories that explain how we came to be here, where we are going and the values we share for the future. This includes the histories of the events that have shaped our values: how the English experience defined our sense of religious tolerance, the struggles of trades unions for workers’ rights, the anti-racism campaigning that bequeathed our current relative tolerance and equality.

National identities rest on a sense of belonging, and if we want to challenge the idea of an ethically defined Englishness, some sense of shared values is also important. It would be very un-English to expect everyone to share the same beliefs and the same values. Nonetheless, some shared notions of fairness, contribution, rights and responsibilities are rooted in our history and are necessary to sustain the NHS and social security.

The National Health Service is built on the idea that we all pay in and its there when we need it. In a relatively static society, we may not have minded if some users had not been able to pay in. People are less relaxed by the idea that the NHS can afford to be available for everyone who comes to the UK from anywhere in the world. Social security has already been weakened by the end of the contributory principle and is weakened further by the idea that it is available to new migrants who have paid little or nothing in.

So a progressive patriotism has practical policy implications too: the rebuilding of a contributory social security system is much more likely to be run with popular values than, for example, a citizens income available to all no matter what their contribution. Fair but clear rules of contribution and entitlement are essential.

For decades, UK economic policy has rested on the idea that national economic interests are best served by paying no regard to national ownership or national state influence in the shape of the economy. By some measures, openness has been a success, but it has also created vulnerability to the finance sector, left much of the economy and our strategic infrastructure in foreign ownership, required the sharp downgrading of our pension system, and let the global wealthy distort our housing market.

A progressive patriotism will look to strike a new balance between openness and national influence and control in the economy.

At the heart of this must be England. Britain’s fading ability to provide an all-embracing common identity looks irreversible. English provides the most accessible and plausible shared identity for all those living in England today. It’s more rooted historically rooted than any region, more immediate than the United Kingdom, and, potentially at least, not tied to any particular community or ethnicity.

Labour will have to help settle the future political governance of England and the relative contribution of English decision-making, English devolution and reforms to Westminster and the UK. If England can’t claim to be the victim of oppression, significant parts of England resent the dominance of London and this needs to be resolved.

The future England will not be defined against other nations. England’s future is as a nation coming together to look after its people in the choppy waters of an insecure world. It’s a strong England, with strong institutions and economy, that enables us to play a full role in the world; as part of a re-shaped Union; as a leading member of the EU, and of the global community. It wont be homogenous; and English identity that works will bind us together while allowing plenty for our other identities – regional, British, ethnic and European – to be expressed.

The very diversity and global connections that sometimes seem problematic today provide the basis of a very modern, 21st century nation, almost uniquely well equipped to work with any part of the globe.

This article is part of a series about how Labour should respond to the particular electoral, social and political challenges of England coordinated by John Denham, Director of the Centre for English Identity and Politics at Winchester University.