Despite the angst, diversity is basically working in Britain

December 14, 2012 1:17 pm

Today, Ed Miliband called for a comprehensive integration strategy. Let me write it for him:

“Each local authority must demonstrate that it is helping local citizens access opportunities for work, education, social support and life. Alongside this, local authorities should demonstrate that they are working in partnership to combat hatred and antagonism where it exists.”

That’s it. And this is the problem with the whole area. The reality is that it is a patchwork of local challenges rather than a singular national challenge. It worries me when national politicians say things like:

“There is another idea we should also reject: the belief that people can simply live side by side in their own communities, respecting each other but living separate lives, protected from hatreds but never building a common bond – never learning to appreciate one another.”

This language has become part of Labour’s discourse over the last couple of years but actually it is troubling. It is perfectly respectable to get on with your life while remaining respectful of others without any need to form ‘common bonds’ with your neighbours. It is starting to creep into the territory of telling people how to live their lives. This is always where notions of the ‘common good’ end up: at best irritating, at worst, intrusive.

We all network and bond in a series of ways. It is the ability to carry multiple allegiances and accommodate many ‘identities’ that is so fundamental to life. It’s who we are. It is definitive of us as a species; we can’t help ourselves. Where people are working to build community ties, such as those providing care and support to the elderly, that is to be warmly encouraged – and supported. That’s different from lecturing people about the relationships they should form.

Despite the angst, diversity is basically working in Britain. We are skeptical about immigration but largely comfortable with diversity. The census shows, for example, that we are now overwhelmingly comfortable with mixed-race marriage. The majority favour gay marriage and that will grow even further over time given the attitudes of younger cohorts. The same goes for ethnic diversity and, probably, immigration too. The changes that this country is experiencing have barely even begun and it is heading in one direction whatever the short term anxieties.

There are two main types of community where antagonism overshadows interaction: communities that have experienced very rapid demographic change and those that have experienced rapid and negative economic change. A few places fall into both categories. A national politician’s job is surely to help those communities adapt their economies, housing and public services to the change? At the local level politicians should want to intervene more readily where mutual misunderstanding is creating tension but there is little that can be done from national level other than provide support.

Essentially, as a national politician you can marshal resources, build institutions and insist that local actors have some answers to the challenges they face. That’s it. Humanity will do the rest. No need for lengthy ‘comprehensive integration strategies’. Yesterday, I spent the day with an expert visitor at the school of which I am Chairman of Governors. At the end of day the visitor commented on how caring the students were of each other and how the staff also displayed a deep care for the students. It has never been something we have deliberately prioritised. It happened because we are building an institution in which they are safe to explore their humanity. Create the right foundation, build the right institutions, enhance people’s capabilities and the social thing happens – in a whole myriad of ways.

The disappointing thing about Ed Milband’s speech today is the yawning gap where an analysis of the importance of institutions in fostering social cohesion should sit. He mentioned that a key moment in his father’s life had been when he learned English at Acton Technical College. In his conference speech, he referenced the forgotten 50%. Yet, in neither speech has he noted the contribution that Community Colleges make to integration and opportunity. Labour’s university-educated elite don’t seem to have any awareness of the massive contribution that these institutions make to integration – they teach English to 100,000s a year. Community colleges – which are far from perfect but make an enormous contribution nonetheless – are seemingly invisible to Labour.

It is in colleges that English will be taught and learnt. Then those students may then go on to acquire a skill, a set of A Levels, move into an apprenticeship and even study for a degree or a professional qualification such as teaching. If you are constantly focused on behaviours, relationships and culture, it’s easy to miss real institutions of potential change.

And today, instead of initiating a conversation about institutions and power, Miliband was instead having a conversation about culture and behaviour. Instead of focusing on what national politicians can reasonably be expected to do, we are focusing on the areas where their influence is minimal. The Big Society failed for precisely this reason.

We can talk about Britishness, culture and ‘common bonds’ until the cows come home. Unless there is a solid and realistic agenda to go along with it then it’s interesting but no more than that. Meanwhile, underneath all this, there was a decisive move to reassess Labour’s opposition to the immigration cap. If the test is ‘what works’ then, again, let me provide a shortcut: the immigration cap doesn’t.

‘One nation Labour’ can go in one of two directions. It can either be about building institutions that enhance human capacities and take on imbalances of power. Alternatively, it can be a series of moral injunctions and imperatives. We’ve been there before and the reality of Government just takes over. Just ask David Cameron. And Gordon Brown. And Tony Blair. And John Major. And every other leader who has gone down the road of ‘virtue’.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    But surely the fact that he was coming up with practical and realistic suggestions for measures which – as you point out – will be delivered largely by public institutions, means that Ed would agree with you?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    But surely the fact that he was coming up with practical and realistic suggestions for measures which – as you point out – will be delivered largely by public institutions, means that Ed would agree with you?

    • http://twitter.com/anthonypainter Anthony Painter

      I don’t know- would he? Wasn’t clear from the speech…. The point is that you have to articulate the value of institutions that deliver. And also appreciate that it is through institutions that you are going to have the biggest impact. The big society failed in this regard. This integration approach risks going the same way.

  • Amber_Star

    It is starting to creep into the territory of telling people how to live their lives. This is always where notions of the ‘common good’ end up: at best irritating, at worst, intrusive.
    ———————–
    Social democrats promote society. Tories promote the family unit. Liberals promote ‘each to his own’ individualism. If the Labour Party doesn’t promote the ‘common good’, society & neighbourliness, then what is the point of Labour?

    • http://twitter.com/anthonypainter Anthony Painter

      What do you mean by the ‘common good’? Define it and then I can answer.

  • Martinay

    Anthony; you are over-interpreting Ed. The quote you give shows him rejecting an idea: the idea of separate development (there’s a word for that in Afrikaans).

    I don’t believe Ed is suggesting much more than that – just reject the idea and work out for yourself how to lead your life in your community – and with your community.

  • Martinay

    Anthony; you are over-interpreting Ed. The quote you give shows him rejecting an idea: the idea of separate development (there’s a word for that in Afrikaans).

    I don’t believe Ed is suggesting much more than that – just reject the idea and work out for yourself how to lead your life in your community – and with your community.

    • robertcp

      Martinay, I do not think that the quote from Ed had anything to do with apartheid. He is rejecting something totally reasonable to me.

      • Martinay

        Are you saying you believe that separate development is totally reasonable? Or are you saying Ed is totally reasonable?

        • robertcp

          My point is that I do not see much of a problem with “the belief that people can simply live side by side in their own communities, respecting each other but living separate lives, protected from hatreds but never building a common bond”. Obviously, apartheid did not involve respect and often involved hatred.

          • Martinay

            You may be right that there is little need for bonds in the short-term. But eventually, the absence of bonds will be exploited for political or ideological or economic purposes and benefits.

      • Martinay

        Are you saying you believe that separate development is totally reasonable? Or are you saying Ed is totally reasonable?

      • Martinay

        Are you saying you believe that separate development is totally reasonable? Or are you saying Ed is totally reasonable?

      • Martinay

        Are you saying you believe that separate development is totally reasonable? Or are you saying Ed is totally reasonable?

  • Pingback: What are they saying about immigration and integration? « 171bus

Latest

  • Comment Britain needs to renegotiate its relationship with the real world

    Britain needs to renegotiate its relationship with the real world

    British politics is peculiarly dominated by the relationship between this country and the rest of the world. Margaret Thatcher’s politics were led by the effort to restore Britain’s global prestige. Since then the EU and foreign wars have divided opinion, and hastened the downfall of two Prime Ministers. They may very well undermine third. The political storm of our day comes from the rise of a party interested– it seems –in little other than severing our relationship to Europe. Every […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Europe McFadden’s appointment comes at a time of big opportunity for Labour on Europe

    McFadden’s appointment comes at a time of big opportunity for Labour on Europe

    Pat McFadden is taking over the Europe brief just at the time when the issue can work in Labour’s favour. Provided we hold to Ed Miliband’s decision not to cave in to the calls to offer an in-out referendum. Europe is again becoming toxic for the Tories. How Cameron must be looking back wistfully to that time when he told his party to stop banging on about Europe. That’s exactly what it is now doing. And it’s largely his own […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The Next Portillo Moment

    The Next Portillo Moment

    Undoubtedly the highlight of election night ‘97 was seeing Labour record the unlikeliest of victories where I live in Enfield Southgate. We did it through hard work, at the time all three Enfield seats were blue and though the Labour swing meant that Edmonton and Enfield North were going red regardless it took a special campaign lead by an extraordinarily good candidate in Stephen Twigg to record what was an iconic victory in the Party’s history. We held the seat […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The business backlash against Tory EU exit plans 

    The business backlash against Tory EU exit plans 

    It’s not just José Manuel Barroso who has warned David Cameron that his party is taking the wrong approach when it comes to talk of an EU exit. There is a clear sense of concern and anger from the UK and international business community in respect of the Tory plans for an in/out referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU in 2017. This has led to a serious business backlash against the Tories. Standard & Poor’s, the international rating […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Miliband sets out 5 point immigration reform plan (but won’t join “Operation Pander”)

    Miliband sets out 5 point immigration reform plan (but won’t join “Operation Pander”)

    Ed Miliband is in Rochester today, where he’s campaigning for the party’s by-election candidate Naushabah Khan against what he called the “two Tory opponents” of UKIP and the Tories in the Rochester and Strood by-election. But the main purpose of Miliband’s speech was to set out what Labour’s approach to immigration will be – specifically an Immigration Reform Bill in the first Queen’s Speech of the new Parliament. Miliband announced it’d be based around five key principles (most of which […]

    Read more →