If there is any philosophy underpinning Donald Trump’s assorted ramblings, it is the idea imported from his ultra-capitalist approach to business, that life is a zero-sum game; that you can only prosper if someone else is diminished. One of the messages that seems to have resonated strongly with rural white voters in particular, was that foreigners, minorities, feminists and liberals in general had used identity politics to push them to the bottom of the pecking order, and that it was now time for ‘real Americans’ to reverse that situation. Following Trump’s victory, the tempting conclusion is that a majoritarian strategy which appeals only to the interests of the dominant race and culture, is a sensible electoral approach.

In a two-horse race (as the US presidential election effectively was), then aggressively courting one demographic at the expense of another carries little risk; any supporters who are uncomfortable with this strategy have nowhere else to go. In multi-party Britain this is not the case. At the last election Labour made the unhappy discovery that United Kingdom Independence party will provide a home for white, working class voters who believe that we are no longer interested in them and their concerns. But now that the Liberal Democrats have risen from their electoral coma, it is equally true that socially liberal voters have a place to go if they feel Labour has moved too far away from them. A recent YouGov survey suggested that whilst 48 per cent of Britons have ‘authoritarian populist’ leanings, 52 per cent are broadly social liberal. Labour will find it impossible to construct a winning share of the vote without being able to appeal to both groups.

This means that we cannot shy away from the fact that large numbers of white Britons feel their community and traditions are under threat. Many people feel that things that are important to them, for example – the monarchy, the armed forces, symbols of nationhood such as the flag – are regularly held in contempt by liberals. We need to be more respectful. We also need to acknowledge that in some places, segregation between different communities is a problem as the Casey report made clear earlier this week. Recent research from the LSE showed that white working-class Britons will soften their views on levels of immigration, when they are assured that in the long run, today’s minorities will become blended into the British mainstream. But integration is broadly a success in Britain; an unnoticed part of the Casey report stated that segregation actually is declining in the population as a whole. Without being complacent about the need to do more in some parts of the country, we should be better at getting that positive message across.

Equally we need to stress that the reason time and resources are devoted to supporting particular groups of people (such as women, BAME, LGBT and disabled people), is not to encourage separateness, or to grant special privileges which are denied to people who do not belong to those groups, but simply to make sure that they have the same opportunities as everyone else. If everyone in Britain is able to fulfill their potential without being held back by overt discrimination or by other less obvious barriers, then there is a clear benefit to our country as a whole.This is why businesses are often at the forefront of promoting diversity as self-interest drives them to put the best people (of whatever background) into the right jobs.

A diverse society does not have to be a segregated society. In fact refusing to acknowledge diversity actually works against breaking down barriers. Requiring workplaces to be accessible to disabled people brings them into the mainstream world of work and prevents them from becoming unnecessarily isolated and dependent. Ensuring that every demographic is proportionately represented in public life, is about making all parts of society feel they have a voice in determining our country’s direction. Insisting that people are not deliberately offensive to women and minorities is not an attempt to limit free speech, it is part of a thoroughly British tradition of being decent to one another, and is no different to asking liberals to show respect to the things that social conservatives value. By contrast, across the Channel in France, decades of ignoring racial and religious distinctions and trying to force minorities to assimilate rather than inviting them to do so, has only exacerbated differences and may yet lead to a neo-fascist being elected as president.

Labour’s most substantial success in recent years was Sadiq Khan’s victory in London. Khan has never shied away from his identity as a Muslim, but is conspicuously respectful to those from other traditions. His principal campaign message: ‘A Mayor for all Londoners’ subtly alluded to the fact that Londoners come in all shapes, sizes, colours and religions, but equally encouraged everyone to find a common identity in belonging to a particular city. This was in direct contrast to Zac Goldsmith’s divisive, zero sum campaign. Khan won. Goldsmith failed. A world view which sets different peoples against each other is the diametric opposite to everything Labour should stand for – the words “by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone” are highlighted on the back of our membership cards. There is nothing wrong with having diverse opinions and diverse identities, or with having policy that takes difference into account, if the ultimate purpose is the common endeavour of making Britain a better place.

––––––––––––

Christabel Cooper is a member of the Progress strategy board. She tweets at @ChristabelCoops

––––––––––––

Photo