The Tories and the search for cultural coherence

This is not really a new argument. When Tory MP Katie Lam – former adviser to both Boris Johnson and Suella Braverman, and already marked as a “rising star” – spoke to The Sunday Times about the Conservatives’ new policy on Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) – the plan would require applicants to pass certain criteria through a means test – she set out her case clearly.

“Everybody who’s in this country illegally I think needs to go home…There are also a large number of people in this country who came here legally, but in effect shouldn’t have been able to do so. It’s not the fault of the individuals who came here, they just shouldn’t have been able to do so. They will also need to go home. What that will leave is a mostly but not entirely culturally coherent group of people.”

The comments drew near instant criticism from some unfriendly quarters, but they echo a thread that has run through the party for more than a decade.

Kemi Badenoch, in her closing conference speech, struck a similar note with the audience:

“Yes, Britain is a multiracial country. That is part of our modern story. But it must never become a multicultural country where shared values dissolve, loyalty fragments and we foment the home-grown terrorism we saw on the streets of Manchester this week. Nations cannot survive on diversity alone. We need a strong, common culture, rooted in our history, our language, our institutions, and our belief in liberty under the law. That is what holds us together. And that is why borders matter. Why numbers matter. But most of all why culture matters. Who comes here, why they come, and how they contribute, that is how we protect the inheritance that generations before us fought for and died for.”

Go back further to David Cameron in 2015 and you find a similar argument: the need to reassert British values and confidence in national culture. “Too often,” he said then, “we have lacked the confidence to enforce our values, for fear of causing offence”. Even earlier, in 2011, his speech to the Munich Security Conference declared “state multiculturalism” had failed. Different communities had been encouraged to live separate lives, he warned:

“We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values.”

The language shifts – ‘cultural coherence’, ‘common culture’, ‘enforcing values’ – but the thread is clear enough. The Conservatives have been circling this question for years without quite knowing how to fully address it.

Part of being British is that it feels instinctively cringe or problematic to define this sort of thing, so we haven’t really tried. Some Tory MPs have even told me it would be “unconservative” to do so. But the question keeps on returning. Could now be the time to work out what, exactly, the issue is – and how to address it? Those who advocate “cultural coherence” will soon have to explain what that actually means.

For Cameron, part of addressing that lay in the “big society”; it is unlikely the Tories will now be returning to that policy direction.

Whichever way it is described – Lam’s “go home” phrasing is clumsily jarred – the underlying policy clamping down on ILR is part of the Tories official ‘Deportation Bill’. Conservative policy now will be to create new powers to remove or refuse ILR (eligible only after an extended ten years in the country, and once granted applicants will have to wait five years, rather than one, before applying for citizenship) to people who fall below certain criteria, including those who have a criminal record or “have become a burden to the UK”. If this happens – and by this I mean people who came here legally but are non-citizens see their residency rules change – that means they can no longer stay in Britain. The logical conclusion otherwise is that everybody should get citizenship from day one.

People have been complaining about levels of immigration, both illegal and legal, for a while. It has been extremely difficult for the Tories – who, until recently, were elected on manifestos pledging but failing to bring down numbers – to preach on it. After the party’s worst ever election result last year it was identified as one of the top issues in trusting the Conservative Party, so it needed addressing.

But broader arguments of cultural coherence go beyond ILR policy. Within the wider Conservative ranks there is sympathy for the argument – but a natural question that follows: What does it actually mean? How and who defines it?

Lam was asked just this in a later appearance on Peston where she defended her comments. How would the shadow home office minister define a “culturally coherent” country?

“There is a gathering view now, which I subscribe to, that multiculturalism has not succeeded in this country, that what you need is one culture for a country to be a success. Now you can be a multi-ethnic culture, you can be a multiracial culture, but you need one national culture for a people to live together in harmony and prosperity.”

In the same week as the developments in Birmingham, is it a surprise that living in harmony is being brought up – who would argue for a culturally incoherent country? Abiding by a base set of values and instincts feels like a good start. But chatter about such things might require a bit more spelling out than that.

Just look at some of the back and forth messages on X. It is not exactly clear what this coherence entails. Some of the questions raised to me, including from Tory MPs, involve whether the country was ever so culturally cohesive (public school men vs severe poverty – ever the Tory frame of reference, “is Eton culturally cohesive?”), and if such a thing would run counter to wider freedoms.

Take some of the difficult questions: How do you distinguish between religious faith and religious cultural traditions? Do you look to language for cultural cohesion?

Part of the Tories’ selling point, their differentiation, is a precision, detail, moderate tone – a pragmatism. Otherwise why not simply go to Reform? There are of course big integration challenges and the responsibility of the state in dealing with that. But the Tories who really believe in this and want to take people with them may need to tell a story of what this would look like. To win the argument, it will need more development – and before long, someone will need to define this more fully.

They might revisit Baroness Louise Casey – now tipped as the next cabinet secretary if Keir Starmer cans yet another member of his most senior staff – and her 2016 review on opportunity and integration, commissioned by Cameron. Her report examined economic exclusion, school segregation, homelessness and social housing – all factors to be considered the current debate. 

Part of the recommendations included:

“Improve the integration of communities in Britain and establish a set of values around which people from all different backgrounds can unite, by:

Attaching more weight to British values, laws and history in our schools.

Considering what additional support or advice should be provided to immigrants to help them get off to the best start in understanding their rights and obligations and our expectations for integration.

Reviewing the route to British citizenship and considering the introduction of an integration oath on arrival for immigrants intending to settle in Britain.”

The debate is still much the same, but if Tories want to reclaim the conversation, they may need to revisit and refresh concrete recommendations like these.

The party’s new ILR policy is, in part, a political plaster – designed to stem the flow of voters to Nigel Farage’s Reform Party. It reframes the argument around economic contribution: “Who comes here, why they come, and how they contribute,” as Badenoch put it. Last week’s shadow cabinet meeting reportedly focused on “message discipline” and “fiscal responsibility”.

Still, there remains a chasm for a conversation about culture. Cameron once warned such discussions would be “pretty uncomfortable”. He was right, as Lam is discovering. But if Conservatives want to sound coherent themselves and revive their reputation on the issue that did the party the most damage, it must come up with straightforward answers to the hardest of questions.