This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/11/multiculturalism-toxic-term-for-tories

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Multiculturalism: a toxic term for Tories Multiculturalism: a toxic term for Tories
(7 months later)
What did you think of David Cameron's Munich speech on the state and multiculturalism, a senior Tory asked me the other day? Pretty unhelpful, I said. I think he wants an end to the threat – perhaps the occasional reality – of community separatism. And in his mind, that threat was best defined by the term multiculturalism. But there are so many definitions of multiculturalism that his condemnation meant different things to different people. Some took it as a plea for greater integration; some as an attack on the desirability and integrity of the various cultures themselves. Relying on a fuzzy term to make a policy-defining speech seems to me a little unwise, not to mention counterproductive, I said. Surprisingly, the top Tory agreed.What did you think of David Cameron's Munich speech on the state and multiculturalism, a senior Tory asked me the other day? Pretty unhelpful, I said. I think he wants an end to the threat – perhaps the occasional reality – of community separatism. And in his mind, that threat was best defined by the term multiculturalism. But there are so many definitions of multiculturalism that his condemnation meant different things to different people. Some took it as a plea for greater integration; some as an attack on the desirability and integrity of the various cultures themselves. Relying on a fuzzy term to make a policy-defining speech seems to me a little unwise, not to mention counterproductive, I said. Surprisingly, the top Tory agreed.
The thinking Tories are thinking this stuff through. There's no great push for a philosophical overhaul because the modernisers think they know what is required: a country that replicates Team GB in the 2012 Olympics; different origins, different appearances, varying cultural habits and yet united in a common effort. But they suspect the party's approach is far too unsophisticated, especially when one considersgiven the baggage they carry: think Enoch Powell; Thatcher's shriek against swamping by "alien" cultures; Norman Tebbit's cricket test; Michael Howard's immigration dog whistle ("Are you thinking what we're thinking?").The thinking Tories are thinking this stuff through. There's no great push for a philosophical overhaul because the modernisers think they know what is required: a country that replicates Team GB in the 2012 Olympics; different origins, different appearances, varying cultural habits and yet united in a common effort. But they suspect the party's approach is far too unsophisticated, especially when one considersgiven the baggage they carry: think Enoch Powell; Thatcher's shriek against swamping by "alien" cultures; Norman Tebbit's cricket test; Michael Howard's immigration dog whistle ("Are you thinking what we're thinking?").
Two articles on ConservativeHome, the site for grassroots Tory discussion, caught my eye. In one, the writer and municipal Tory politician Harry Phibbs said: "I don't believe that shutting up about immigration would help. When canvassing I find ethnic-minority voters are just as likely to be concerned about this as white voters. But we should be careful that language is not misinterpreted – this includes avoiding attacking 'multiculturalism'."Two articles on ConservativeHome, the site for grassroots Tory discussion, caught my eye. In one, the writer and municipal Tory politician Harry Phibbs said: "I don't believe that shutting up about immigration would help. When canvassing I find ethnic-minority voters are just as likely to be concerned about this as white voters. But we should be careful that language is not misinterpreted – this includes avoiding attacking 'multiculturalism'."
In the other, blogger Andrew Lilico concurred. "When laymen hear that such-and-such a commentator or politician has attacked 'multiculturalism', they are likely to think that means those commentators are opposed to immigration or perhaps even believe that those that have already arrived from other cultures should be 'sent home'." Approach, but cautiously, he said.In the other, blogger Andrew Lilico concurred. "When laymen hear that such-and-such a commentator or politician has attacked 'multiculturalism', they are likely to think that means those commentators are opposed to immigration or perhaps even believe that those that have already arrived from other cultures should be 'sent home'." Approach, but cautiously, he said.
Maybe we need a more precise word, Phibbs tells me. "It's is no good complaining about misinterpretation if that is how the term is understood. Politicians have to accept that reality."Maybe we need a more precise word, Phibbs tells me. "It's is no good complaining about misinterpretation if that is how the term is understood. Politicians have to accept that reality."
If "multiculturalism" is dead as a term that politicos deploy to no beneficial effect, is that such a bad thing?If "multiculturalism" is dead as a term that politicos deploy to no beneficial effect, is that such a bad thing?
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.