Guy Aitchison (London, OK): You may recall Anthony Barnett having some fun over the summer with a peculiar pamphlet on Britishness written by Liam Byrne, our Minister of State for Borders and Immigration. Byrne's description of his encounter with an "eloquent of lady of Edgbaston", who convinced him that we can learn to live together if only "we put our minds to it", provided the theme for OK's summer limerick competition, which attracted some eloquent entries of its own.

The Minister was clearly impressed with her words as they also form the springboard for the discussion of Britishness in his latest pamphlet, A More United Kingdom (pdf), published this week by Demos (it's quite long - you can also hear Byrne talk about the report in this Demos podcast). "In this remark", he says, "you hear captured the strong sense that the time is right for Britain as a country to do more to celebrate the things that we do have in common. A national day would be the perfect way."

The idea of a Britishness day was first touted by Byrne in a pamphlet (pdf) for the Fabian Society which he produced with Ruth Kelly. Published as Brown took power last year, it provided an early indication of what one of the central themes of his Governance of Britain agenda - and indeed his premiership - would be. Today, as the Brown agenda crumbles amidst economic disaster and backbench plotting, we have Byrne's latest proposals. They are the product of an eight-week-long journey around the country with his Home Office cohort in which he discussed with the public questions of immigration, identity and belonging.

Byrne starts from a view not unlike that set out by David Goodhart, editor of Prospect, in a widely-read OurKingdom essay. In our diverse, fluid and complex world - our "world without walls" as Byrne puts it, adopting Bill Clinton's phrase - "shared standards" are needed to bring harmony and shield us from both the "politics of fear" and the "politics of individualism". Byrne worries that if Labour does not map out a "progressive" agenda on identity and immigration Cameron's Conservatives will hijack the language of community and fraternity for the purposes of their regressive agenda of returning to "traditional institutions, most obviously the nuclear family, in an attempt to stave off vast technological, social and economic changes."

But Byrne does not reject "traditional institutions" for modern ones or repeat his notorious prediction that ID cards will be a "great British institution". Instead he argues that the right's Burkean instincts should be resisted in favour of an "intelligent balance between what is common and the space to be different", what Robert Putnam has called "civic inventiveness".

Whereas Goodhart is comfortable with conceiving this new form of post-ethnic identity (he calls it "post post-nationalism") as an English identity in the event of the disintegration of the UK state, for Byrne, like Brown, it has to be Britishness. Indeed, second on his list of "ideas" to inform debate on citizenship and immigration is the somewhat circular reasoning that a "stronger defence of the Union" is needed. Byrne quotes Vron Ware approvingly to the effect that Britishness is a more inclusive identity than Englishness as it includes the "Celtic fringe", but seems oblivious to the debates Vron herself has participated in here on OK on the very same questions. This is revealed in a passage in which Byrne discusses his own identity:

The Union is a constitutional example of the kind of balance that we all must achieve in the modern world. I am the grandson of Irish immigrants. But I have three generations of family from Birmingham, where I live today. I spent years growing up in Essex and a bit of me will always be proud to be an ‘Essex boy'. When I go to Europe I feel European. As a Catholic, part of me is defined by two millennia of history and an allegiance to the Pope. But I am British and proud of it. The celebration of the Union is fundamental to Britishness because it is de facto a construction of multiple identities.

As commentators such as David Marquand, and Michael Kenny from ippr, warned early on, the Government's refusal to even countenance England as a source of identity and allegiance risks undermining the Brown-Byrne project before it even starts. Part-Brummie, part-Essex boy, part-Catholic and part-European, Byrne sees no place for the "E" word in his own scheme of "multiple identities". Now this is perfectly reasonable of course- Byrne is free to self-identify as he chooses. But what he cannot do is claim he is leading an honest and open consultation on national identity post-devolution when the only options he is prepared to offer others is Britishness.

Byrne goes on to claim that a majority of the people he spoke to were enthusiastic about the idea of a "Britishness day". This surprised me when I read it. This is partly because, to me, the idea of a Britishness day (and, I might add, an Englishness day) is so unappealing, but it is also because my experience runs so counter to that of Byrne. In all the discussions I've had on the idea I have often heard it ridiculed and not once have I heard it seriously defended. (I'm reminded of the fantastic responses last year to Brown's plans for a "national motto" - my favourite being "Smile - you're on CCTV").

Much of the evidence Byrne offers is impressionistic. I have no idea how these kinds of government-run discussions are conducted but I'm sure it must be pretty easy to get the kind of results you want. The positive responses recorded, "It would give people a sense of belonging", "It would be a way to educate people about Britain", could simply be answers to the question "What would some of the positive things be about a Britshness day?" When a discussion is being led by someone with a clear idea of what they want (see last year's Fabian pamphlet) it seems wise to treat the results with caution.

One thing that didn't surprise me is the "shared standards" identified by Byrne's respondents. These, he hopes, could be used to forge some kind of "social contract" with new arrivals. They are so vague as to be meaningless: learn the language, obey the law, pay taxes and be tolerant towards others. Fair enough - but is there a country in the world that rejects these standards? If not, it's difficult to understand why we should discuss them in terms of Britishness.

Much of the media reaction to the report, of course, focussed on the 27 ideas garnered by Byrne and his Home Office team on how to celebrate a national day. The idea of drinking alcohol is perhaps the most realistic suggestion (albeit one which, for most of us, would do little to distinguish Britishness day from any other public holiday), whilst the idea of "appreciating" the weather makes you wonder if they're even talking about the same country.

Here is the list of all 27:

1 a national event, celebrated in local areas

2 with a good cross-section of society on the organising committee; lots of small community events; have a particular theme -different theme each year, set by organising committee

3 by using TV to inform about British history; a speech by the Queen; TV link-ups around country

4 in the form of a remembrance day celebrating the bravery of veterans

5 by encouraging young people to visit or help older people; celebrate voluntary work

6 through school involvement - teach history, choirs singing

7 through daytime activities to involve whole community, and evening for partying

8 by holding street parties and neighbourhood get-together; would work as a street party - exchanging food and culture

9 as a carnival similar to the Notting Hill Carnival; big procession similar to St Paul's Carnival; fireworks

10 through music - British or world music; concerts like Live Aid; British music; play local music; local dress

11 through dance - British dancers; Morris dancing; folk dancing

12 through food - British and other cultures; regional food; different cultures' foods

13 through drinking

14 through art; involve theatre; free film viewings on history of Britain

15 by having a sports theme - all nationalities can take part; football

16 by celebrating different cultural dress

17 by holding community discussions; meetings in town halls

18 by promoting posters of iconic figures, eg fallen heroes, Winston Churchill

19 by holding a ceremony to remember the good things over the past year

20 by appreciating the country; weather; enjoyment

21 cheaply so people get involved

22 by holding free events around the city

23 by incorporating countries that used to be part of the Empire

24 by making it about integration

25 by using publicity to ensure people get involved - like Children in Need

26 by emphasising the theme of British life, immigration, remembrance; cost should be met locally as shows that putting into the local community helps to get something good back

27 in an understated but firm way, without fuss; show good and bad aspects of living in Britain (and how bad aspects are being addressed) - give honest picture.

The reaction of Jim White' in the Telegraph was perhaps the most entertaining: "Not since the contents of the Millennium Dome were first unveiled has such a riveting catalogue of events been put together. Let's hope the police will be able to cope with the queues forming outside town halls across the nation of those anxious to secure their place at community discussions."

It's easy to poke fun of course, but the serious point is that this top-down, managed "celebration" of a contested identity is alienating even for Unionists. As Unionist blogger O'Neill puts it: "if a think-tank of separatists had been wanting to come up with the best way to ridicule both "Britishness" and the United Kingdom, they couldn't have done a better job than the supposedly Unionist Liam Byrne."

Byrne's third and final idea on citizenship and immigration reform relates to his concern to take back the fraternity "agenda" from the Tories: the idea of "the Labour Party leading a renewal of civic pride and association as part of a broader, sustained effort to regenerate Britain's poorest places." There is something odd about Byrne's discussion of social and economic inequality. It appears as an after-thought following on from his more frivolous discussion of Britishness day. It's as though he's saying, "Look, the solidarity needed for Britishness day to work just won't happen so long as we have inequality on a massive scale. That needs to be sorted out first." Is a crisis of Britishness really the best reason New Labour has for approaching the problem of egregious inequality? What have they been doing the last ten years whilst the problem was getting worse?

Byrne employs the classic politician's trick. He talks in terms of the impersonal forces of globalisation breaking up communities as though these forces are entirely beyond the state's control. Britishness is the answer! There is no recognition by Byrne that New Labour's enthusiastic embrace of neo-liberalism has had any part to play in undermining community solidarity and traditional forms of identity and allegiance. That is why it is hard to be convinced by his claim that "Only the Labour Party in government offers an analysis of this problem, coupled with the promise of investment to manage these forces and rebuild communities that find themselves on the sharp end of change."

Once again, couching the debate in terms of Britishness seems exactly the wrong place to start.