“I’m sure Conservative Party Co-Chairman, Baroness Warsi, would love to know that she’s accidentally joined the wrong party. That she actually should be a leftie.”

Firstly: please God no.

Secondly: don’t you see, “multiculturalism” doesn’t refer to Warsi? It only applies to non-whites/non-Christians than Burley disapproves of. That’s the advantage of using a vague term instead of “blacks”/”Asians”/”Muslims”: you can change the rules whenever you like. Well, that and you can pretend not to be racist while sitting around in your Nazi uniform whinging about there not being enough white people on telly.

Good article.

The most disappointing part of Mr Burley’s tweet is that he equates multi-culturalism with the Left.

Erm, that’s because multiculturalism is a squarely leftist programme. The idea that no culture–especially your own–is authoritative is the antithesis of conservatism.

I’m sure Conservative Party Co-Chairman, Baroness Warsi, would love to know that she’s accidentally joined the wrong party. That she actually should be a leftie.

The sad truth is that most of the Conservative Party have joined the wrong party.

@ vimothy

“The sad truth is that most of the Conservative Party have joined the wrong party”.

Yeah, they should be in the BNP or UKIP at the very least.

@ vimothy and buddyhell

Well, your main problem there is that the Tories are a messy coalition of moderate conservatives, libertarians, political Christians, little Englanders who recognise that UKIP doesn’t have clout, and perhaps racist nationalists who recognise that the BNP is political poison. So it’s hard to say what the “true” face of the Tory Party is: where does David Davies map onto Nadine Dorries?

Thanks for the comments everyone. I really appreciate your views. Thanks for taking the time to share them.

@vimothy – I think we disagree on multiculturalism. I don’t believe that either political side can own it. For that matter, I think there are sizeable groups on both the left and the right who wish to disown it.

“I don’t believe that either political side can own it”

I don’t think anyone has even really defined it in a generally understood way – it means different things to different people, and used by the tories as dog whistling more than anything.

@4. Chaise

I was being sarcastic. 😉

@ 7 buddyhell

Fair enough – there are plenty of people who WOULD seriously say that Tories = BNP though. Sally for example.

What is multicultirism, there seem to be multidefinitions of it?

I did not see the opening ceremony as multicultural, unless you think people of different ethnicity defines it, something I don’t subscribe to.

Great article – but the football issue is very different to the political one.

The Tories have reluctantly started electing some middle class people from minority groups as MPs now – and we all hope their all-white middle class bedfellows catch on soon and start electing some middle class ethnic minority MPs too. Labour, with a bigger working class and urban history have tended to be much more diverse by nature so have fewer hang ups with diversity in this regard.

English football though is not the same thing.

Football is very diverse for much the same reason that Labour is very diverse. It is working class and urban by history and nature. But unlike Labour, it isn’t politically motivated. As such it doesn’t exclude racists or the ignorant or the insensitive. As such it is far more reflective of wider society than politics in its vocabulary and attitude.

It is thus an issue for those in the political sphere to suddenly be confronted by a world that isn’t very sensitive and that doesn’t hide behind dog whistles like multiculture or PC gone mad. But football itself is not to blame, and it probably isn’t unrepresentitive of wider society. Football is just a more honest and open and inclusive place than politics, just as wider society is.

Of course there are anomalies. Chelsea’s historic links to various neo-nazi groups means they have a fanbase somewhat more inclined to racist chanting than, say, Spurs or Arsenal in the same city. But that’s a problem of history not of today.

That’s especially so when talking about the Rio Ferdinand case. All he did was laugh at (in agreement with) the “choc ice” slur about a court case that found John Terry innocent of racism after shouting “black c***” at his brother. Apparently racist sarcasm is not racist, but laughing at a tweet might be (though Rio did later tweet that his laughter was sarcastic).

So while some people obviously do see the world in “blocks” – I’m not sure Rio Ferdinand’s comment is much by way of an indication of a widespread problem – either in football or wider society. Probably more representitive of an angry brother after an offensive court ruling.

‘Multiculturalism’ has two distinct meanings:

(a) a society in which different enthnicities coexist side by side, often overlapping, and which Burley clearly disapproves of but Boyle celebrates: we would be better off describing as diversity; and

(b) the method of organising a multi-ethnic society by boxing everyone into neat little pidgeonholes, and funding projects through self-serving community leaders which has characterised government management of ethnic groups since the Eighties.

(a) and (b) are not the same thing.

The mixed race couple from the opening ceremony and the black musicians who appeal to youth in general represent ‘multiculturalism’ in the first sense of the word; they are not segregated along racial lines in the second sense of the word.

shatterface

in what was has “b” been government management of ethnic minorities for years?

Some example over the last ten years would be handy so I know what you are on about.

Karan,

Regardless of who wants to own it and who wants to disown it, a conservatism that says, “there’s nothing special about British culture, so why should it remain authoritative in Britain?” is not actually conservative in any sense. What does conservatism stand for if not the conservation of particular culture?

The reason why there are plenty of people on the right who think otherwise is that the right is actually the left but with a decade-or-so-long lag, give or take a few weirdos and losers who haven’t got the message yet.

vimothy

Could they not be conserving a cultural tradition of liberty and diverse lives lived side by side?

Because Britain has definately had that for a thousand years and more.

The Tories have reluctantly started electing some middle class people from minority groups as MPs now

The Tories have, reluctantly or otherwise, been electing middle class people from minority groups as MPs for well over 150 years. Two Tory leaders have been from minority groups for that matter.

15

Agreed, the tories are now more concerned with class than ethnicity and, of course, it’s the middle-class and particularly the wealthy. They have always represented the ruling economic elite, it’s just that prior to industrialization and globalization, this elite were usually white land owners.

Tim
While I understand your desire to play up the multicultural nature of the party retrospectvely, in truth, overlooking Anglicanised society class Jews (like Disraeli), who were always deemed white enough and a good example of how Jews should be, unlike those who remained Jewish, there has maybe been two I can think of. One Indian in the 1800s and one Sri Lankan Christian in the 1990s who I believed won by surprise having stood in a seat labour were expected to take in 1992. Which is a bit like the one lib dem ethnic minority mp to date, who wine an anti Iraq bi-election in a seat that ensured they wouldn’t have to keep him around after a general election gave the seat safely.back to labour. (Leicester I believe).

I guess you coiled claim Mr sayeed from the the 80s. But since he didnt consider himself an ethnic minority, you’d probably struggle with that one.

So any other examples for this utter distraction from the article’s point might be welcome.

Oh, and yes it is patronising to overlook society Jews deemed white enough in this way. But that’s the party for you.

And let’s not forget that Disraeli had to swear an allegiance to the Church of England.

Chaise

twice in this thread you mention Christians, eg:

> It only applies to non-whites/non-Christians than Burley disapproves of.

Do you have reason to think that Burley is pro-Christian ?

If not – why introduce religion?

@17. margin4error: “Which is a bit like the one lib dem ethnic minority mp to date, who wine an anti Iraq bi-election in a seat that ensured they wouldn’t have to keep him around after a general election gave the seat safely.back to labour. (Leicester I believe).”

The Leicester South LibDem who won at the 2004 by-election lost at the subsequent General Election because he wasn’t very good. Leicester City LibDems had worked that seat very well before the by-election and the victory cannot solely be defined by anti-Iraq war sentiment.

LibDems, you may note, dumped the candidate before the second by-election in 2010. Too late, I agree. Zuffar Haq, the following candidate, is an outstanding individual (Google his name + Leicester), and I hope that you understand his suitability.

For the record:
First MP of Asian background; 1892; Dadabhai Naoroji; Finsbury Central; Liberal.

Actually Chaise, your comments really are curious.

> the Tories are a messy coalition of moderate conservatives, libertarians, political Christians

Are you saying that the Tories have a monopoly on ‘political christians’ ?

Are you aware of:
The Christian Socialist Movement: http://www.thecsm.org.uk/
The Liberal Democrat Christian Fellowship: http://ldcf.net/web/

Quotes such as:

Andy Burnham, a Roman Catholic, emphasised the Christian origins of his politics, insisting several times that

“the basic tenets of the Labour Party and socialism are one and the same [as] those of Christianity”.

Ed Balls spoke of his positive early memories of his parents’ Anglican church and said his father’s commitment to Labour had grown out of Christianity.

Diane Abbott emphasised the values with which she had been brought up, saying,

“We could do worse, as we go forward as a Labour movement, than return to those values of faith, community and family.”

@16. steveb: “Agreed, the tories are now more concerned with class than ethnicity and, of course, it’s the middle-class and particularly the wealthy. They have always represented the ruling economic elite, it’s just that prior to industrialization and globalization, this elite were usually white land owners.”

One guess, Steve, is that you understand the Conservative Party better than they do. My other guess is that you are utterly wrong.

The Conservative Party can only win elections by appealing to socially conservative voters who do not benefit (or may be disbenefited) by Conservative Party policy.

Financially, the Conservative Party can only survive by appealing to donors who are not socially conservative but who are stinking rich. I accept that there are still a lot of rich socially conservative donors but they keep their hands in their pockets at the moment.

These are interesting times for the Conservative Party; they cannot determine whether they are free democrats or conservatives, and there is a lot of time for explosion before the next General Election.

Charlieman

Having campaigned there in 2004 – the by-election was almost exclusively an anti-iraq vote. Some vague pretence by the party to claim it was wider than that is understandable but pretty much just wrong. Not that I’m criticising the electorate or any party in particular for focusing on such a big and motivating policy – that’s sort of the point of democracy.

Also – although the liberal party has long since ceased to exist (mid 1980s), the 1892 election of naoruji was remarkable at the time. And I wouldn’t hold its homogeneity for the last 80 years of its existence against it as a party particularly, since they tended only to have a handful of MPs, and even now the UK is apparently less 10% ethnic minority. So mathematically it was hardly anomalous.

The Lib Dems on the other hand – it is rather dispicable that a party that regularly has around 40 to 50 MPs has not a single one from ethnic minority groups.

22

The tories have always been able to appeal to the popular vote or they would have disappeared by now, Thatcher was magnificent and so was Gladstone but you will note that I said ‘represent’, this is something quite different.

But I agree that the tories are very good at appearing to change their spots and I’ve been the first one to acknowledge that the tories now live in interesting times in which those who they really represent cannot be reduced to a ‘popular stereotype’ in order to appeal to the mass vote. But that doesn’t mean that they cannot win elections, because winning also depends upon the quality of your competitors

@24

Meant Disraeli, Gladstone, was a Liberal, who was also a great orator, I’ll go to the bottom of the class.

@ Just Visiting

“Do you have reason to think that Burley is pro-Christian ?

If not – why introduce religion?”

I’d take a bet that he is, but no, I don’t know. I introduced religion because we’re discussing “multiculturalism”, which in dog-whistle form is generally code for “foreigners”, “non-whites” and “Muslims”. So, mindful that people kick off if you treat Muslims as a racial group, I had to include religion. Change it to “non-Christian/agnostic/athiest” if you like. Or “Religious position that is perceived as foreign”.

“Actually Chaise, your comments really are curious.

Are you saying that the Tories have a monopoly on ‘political christians’ ?”

Not at all. They don’t have a monopoly on any of the groups on that list. It’s just that, of the main parties, they seem most attractive to people whose politics are massively driven by their Christian affiliation, because they come off as most sympathetic to agendas like pro-life, anti-gay-marriage, and pro-Christianity in general.

I note that you didn’t show any concern about the other groups on my list, none of which could be said to be solely Tory. So I think you might be being over-sensitive here, with all due respect. If you think I’m having a go at Christians (possibly based on “Tory = bad”), I’m not. I’m simply allowing for the facts that a) the Tory party is especially attractive to traditional Christians and thus has to take their views into account, and b) when people disguise the nature of their hate-groups behind the term “multicultural”, that is often along religious lines as well as racial.

“(b) the method of organising a multi-ethnic society by boxing everyone into neat little pidgeonholes, and funding projects through self-serving community leaders which has characterised government management of ethnic groups since the Eighties.”

But even this is preferable to the alternative policy of forced integration/conformity with the dominant culture. Which is usually the implied policy critics of multi-culturalism usualy advocate.

Worth pointing out that cultural identity isn’t always (I’d argue rarely is) related to ethnic/religious background. People define their identity through hobbies, work, as well as nationality – eg: bikers, football fans, goths, computer geeks etc, And also people hold many identities at the same time.

@1: “multiculturalism” doesn’t refer to Warsi … That’s the advantage of using a vague term

Exactly. Multiculturalism just means whatever the speaker uses it to mean. As Orwell noted, words like this are usually said with the intent to deceive. As we shouldn’t use that word.

Instead, whenever someones says they are for or against multiculturalism, we should ask them to be specific and say exactly which policies they are advocating.

@27: But even this is preferable to the alternative policy of forced integration/conformity with the dominant culture.

When you say “forced integration/conformity”, can you be specific? What policies is it that you are opposing?

Oh, and yes it is patronising to overlook society Jews deemed white enough in this way. But that’s the party for you.

Um. Jews are a minority ethnic group. What on earth “society Jews” are, I don’t know but the Tory party has had literally dozens of Jewish MPs over the centuries. Disraeli converted to Christianity (which says considerably more about the country’s politics at the time than it does about the Tory Party’s), but you can have Michael Howard, Oliver Letwin, Phillip Oppenheim, Sally Oppenheim, Keith Joseph, Anthony Meyer, Leon Brittan, Nigel Lawson. All of whom remained Jewish, many of whem were ministers and one was party leader.

Arguing that ‘Jews don’t count’ is pretty unpleasant.

@ 28 Phil Hunt

“Instead, whenever someones says they are for or against multiculturalism, we should ask them to be specific and say exactly which policies they are advocating.”

Agreed. Some on the left use it as an applause light, normally with the undertone of “If you disagree with [person or policy], you must hate multiculturalism!” While some on the right use it to equate the existence of foreign people or cultural influences with rarer and more extreme views, or with windmills created by the tabloids.

“When you say “forced integration/conformity”, can you be specific? What policies is it that you are opposing?”

In terms of actual policies the specific examples I can think of would generally be things like banning Hijabs.

But more generally those advocating a ‘forced integration/conformity’ tend to be those not in a position to outline detailed policies. It tends to be more sentiments that are expressed in immigration debates when people call for the alleged behaviour of minority groups to be changed to be closer to the majority, although specific policies are rarely mentioned. It also tends to be a motivating factor behind opposition to planning applications for mosques, outrage expressed when takeaways offer halal food, or to use a non-religious example, when Cyclists ask for cycle lanes and space for locking up their bikes. The implication being in every case that the minority should simply change their behaviour to conform with the majority.

@ 6 Planeshift, 9 Dez, and others;

I can’t see that multi-culturalism is a vague term at all. It’s the belief that the simple toleration of group differences within a society is insufficient to achieve equal citizenship, and that as a result these differences must be formally recognised and accommodated by positive action.

Examples of multi-culturalism in action by way of cultural accommodations might include specific exemptions from the law of the land (such as Sikhs being excused from the wearing of motorcycle helmets), help to do things which most of us can do without any special assistance (such as the provision of multi-language ballot papers), the assured representation of minorities by way of quotas (usually described as affirmative action), the recognition of other legal codes within the dominant jurisdiction (such as happens in the UK by way of formally recognised Beth Din and Sharia courts), and limited self-government within an overall framework (such as the Scottish, Northern Irish, and Welsh Assemblies).

So I don’t think there any confusion about what multi-culturalism means. But there are great difficulties in its practice, mainly because there is (in my view) no rationale for multi-culturalism which is sufficiently coherent to provide a basis for day-to-day policy making, not to mention the problems involved in identifying truly culturally distinct groups and then going on to assess whether they are genuinely disadvantaged or not.

Other problems include multicultural rights which conflict with the rights of others – feminists might have a problem with extending special exemptions to patriarchal cultures which reinforce gender inequality in areas such as arranged marriages, or polygamy – or indeed any culturally justified rights which the wider society finds reprehensible – such as FMG within the Somali community.

I have no ready answers. In the meantime I think we should be very cautious about seeing multiculturalism as an unalloyed good.

I of course meant FGM and not FMG above. Bad typing, sorry.

@ 32 Churm

“I can’t see that multi-culturalism is a vague term at all. It’s the belief that the simple toleration of group differences within a society is insufficient to achieve equal citizenship, and that as a result these differences must be formally recognised and accommodated by positive action. ”

Your definition – a perfectly good one – is not vague. Where the vagueness creeps in is that your definition is not universally recognised. From my POV you’ve placed yourself in the middle of two other possible definitions: first, just the presence of multiple cultures, and second, the idea that we should automatically fold rather than offend someone’s cultural sensibilities. It is, of course, this last definition that Burley et al. are using when they throw the word like an epithet. And of course people equivocate between these definitions.

As to the rest of your post, my personal working solution is that we should not allow people to simply ignore the law based on their cultural desires (or write in exemptions for members of group X), but the fact that the law as it stands offends their culture should be taken into account when determining whether the law should be changed.

Take that guy who wanted to have his body burned in accordance with his religious beliefs. We’ve never had much demand for that so we’ve never bothered working out a compromise should someone want it. But if there IS demand, then that suggests we should consider coming up with a way of allowing it to happen within the spirit of the law.

Chaise

> I introduced religion because we’re discussing “multiculturalism” … mindful that people kick off if you treat Muslims as a racial group, …. Change it to “non-Christian/agnostic/athiest” if you like.

Slighty convoluted thinking maybe.
If you meant Muslim – why didn’t you say it?

@ 35 Just Visting

“Slighty convoluted thinking maybe.
If you meant Muslim – why didn’t you say it?”

Because it’s not just Muslims, they’re just the religious group who get this most often. I did actually offer you two improved examples, both of which would include Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs…

Not many people have a problem with Hinduism in this country, but if something like the Olympic ceremony was felt to over-emphasise Hinduism, or a Hindu group demanded a change in the law to accomodate them, you can be sure that people would be spitting “multiculturalism” like a dirty word.

Now you: you’ve homed in on Christianity in my first post, among the many other things I mentioned, and now you’re ignoring all “other” religious groups except Muslims. Why do you want to twist what I’m saying into a Christian/Muslim thing? It’s tangental and odd.

23. margin4error: “Having campaigned there in 2004 – the by-election was almost exclusively an anti-iraq vote.”

But I live in Leicester South and have done so for 20 years. I argue for three factors contributing to the LibDem win in 2004: basic grunt work by local activists, the Iraq War (I accept your appraisal that it was significant), and (more controversially) the victor’s status in the Sikh community.

“Also – although the liberal party has long since ceased to exist (mid 1980s), the 1892 election of naoruji was remarkable at the time.”

There is a continuing Liberal Party that assumes the identity of the party that merged. Most people, however, would acknowledge that the convergence of the Liberal/SDP Alliance into the LibDems was a Liberal Party take over; the SDP provided much less political capital to the exercise. Thus the LibDems can fairly adopt Liberal Party heritage.

“The Lib Dems on the other hand – it is rather dispicable that a party that regularly has around 40 to 50 MPs has not a single one from ethnic minority groups.”

Despicable? It is unfortunate and embarrassing that there are no ethnic minority LibDem MPs. Ten or twenty years ago, it was embarrassing that there were so few women LibDem MPs. It is not a conspiracy but a consequence of the electoral system and the geographic location of winnable seats.

There is no such thing as a safe Liberal seat into which a candidate can be parachuted. In 1979, Montgomeryshire Liberals prepared themselves to celebrate the centenary of holding the seat and, taking their eye off the ball, consequently lost it.

@ 34 Chaise

Thanks for your thoughtful response to my previous post. I think, however, there’s more to the Burley position than that. His argument would be, I suppose, that there’s a difference between those whose minority position is unchosen and who lack the social and political muscle to rectify any inequalities (in which case special protections are justified), and economic immigrants who’ve voluntarily decided to relinquish everyday access to their native culture by migrating (in which case any special claims on their hosts are not justified). It would be the latter, I suspect, that Burley et al have in mind when considering the situation in the UK.

@ 38 Churm

“His argument would be, I suppose, that there’s a difference between those whose minority position is unchosen and who lack the social and political muscle to rectify any inequalities (in which case special protections are justified), and economic immigrants who’ve voluntarily decided to relinquish everyday access to their native culture by migrating (in which case any special claims on their hosts are not justified). It would be the latter, I suspect, that Burley et al have in mind when considering the situation in the UK.”

That’s a lot of words to put into someone’s mouth. Where are you getting it from? Based on what I’ve seen thus far Burley’s comments look knee-jerk rather than considered.

I mean, what in the Olympic ceremony involved voluntary migrants making special claims on their “hosts”? Was there anything in the ceremony that distinguished between voluntary and non-voluntary minorities?

“So I don’t think there any confusion about what multi-culturalism means. ”

I’m sorry, but thats the first time I have ever heard devolution referred to as a policy of ‘multi-culturalism’.

I thought your defination was actually pretty good, but to pretend it isn’t a contested term is naive I think. For many people I simply think ‘multi-culturalism’ means simply having lots of people from different cultures residing in the same country. When Blair called the UK a ‘muti-cultural nation’ for me that was what he meant – the policies that largely followed from that post macpherson (generally regarded as the pro-multi-cultural policies that most often come in for criticism) were not themselves multi-culturalism, but a reaction to dealing with what was simply a fact on the ground.

This is why opponents of multi-culturalism don’t really come accross as saying ‘there are better ways to deal with the fact we have lots of people from different backgrounds now living in the UK’, they come accross as disliking the mere fact that we have lots of people from different backgrounds living in the UK.

As such their proposed policies in response to this are aimed at changing this fact, and so they advocate policies that lie on a spectrum ranging from removing minority groups at one extreme, to policies trying to promote a common and dominant culture at the other end.

It’s this distinction in what people mean that confuses the issue, and mean people who oppose a specific policy such as exempting sikhs from crash helmets are sometimes confused with people who want conformity of culture and the removal of those who don’t conform to the dominant culture.

@ 39 Chaise and 40 Planeshift

I’d agree with both your posts, and you both rightly point out that I was ignoring the fact that the political backlash against multi-culturalism in the UK seems to be mainly informed by a straightforward fear and anxiety about “foreigners”, and immigrants in particular. But if multi-culturalism is to be defended we must at least know what we mean by the term, which is where I was coming from.

Otherwise, Chaise, I admit I was putting words into Burley’s mouth with no justification whatsoever. But the point nevertheless still stands. And, Planeshift, if you think that the claims for exemption from UK laws made by the Scottish Assembly aren’t grounded in a sense of a distinct Scottish cultural identity, then you’ve never been to an international at Hampden Park…

“claims for exemption from UK laws made by the Scottish Assembly”

I hardly think devolved institutions choosing different policy paths constitute an ‘exemption from UK law’, particularly as UK law still governs the precise powers of each institution. It’s how the UK governs itself now, and is not a particularly unusual structure of governance save for the continuing assymetry of the constitutional settlement (failure to have devolution in England). Having different levels of government from local councils to national/federal parliaments is the norm.

Do you think the reason we have a London mayor is down to multi-culturalism?

@42 Planeshift

Well, no, I don’t think that all forms are devolution are driven by multi-cultural considerations. So, for the avoidance of doubt, I don’t think that there’s a Mayor of London for reasons of multi-culturalism.

But I do think that the devolution of certain powers to indigenous peoples can be a result of multi-cultural considerations – that is, from a concern to acknowledge/recognise/accommodate/formalise the concerns of a separate group identity within a dominant culture.

If you don’t like my Scottish example, I would offer up the further examples of the special status enjoyed by native Americans in the US, the Quebecois in Canada, the Catalans in Spain, and the Maori in New Zealand. None of these arrangements can, I think, be considered a result of the normal devolutionary process which you describe.

“In 1979, Montgomeryshire Liberals prepared themselves to celebrate the centenary of holding the seat and, taking their eye off the ball, consequently lost it.”
And then in 2010 lost it again by having as candidate a self-publicist who was more interested in getting into the gossip magazines than in serious politics.

@44. Alex Macfie: “And then in 2010 lost it again by having as candidate a self-publicist who was more interested in getting into the gossip magazines than in serious politics.”

Touche (accent acute on the final letter), Alex. I cannot deny your observation.

“Touche (accent acute on the final letter)”

Lemmee try: touché

Search on Google, copy and paste. If the above comes out as “touch&!” or something then disregard.

Who cares? You’re fools if you think this or anything else actually matters. There are no values.

@46. Chaise Guevara: “Search on Google, copy and paste. If the above comes out as “touch&!” or something then disregard.”

I’ve been doing this internet nonsense for years. I was doing it when Unicode was a vague concept. I can cope with misinterpretations. 😉

@ 47 Chris

“Who cares? You’re fools if you think this or anything else actually matters. There are no values.”

It’s really rather beautiful that you cared enough to type that. It’s like listening to a nihilist demand that you recognise the importance of nihilism.