The Importance Of Precise Speech

Yesterday, 27th September 2023, UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman gave a passionate speech about the UK and migration.

Braverman spoke at some length but the headlines focused on just one phrase, "Multiculturalism has failed."

They did so for one very good reason, that phrase is loaded. It's a dog-whistle to a certain group of people and it is going to sell clicks and papers today. Braverman will be hailed by the further-right as being bold, and by the more left-leaning as being a racist.

Whatever your views on the UK and immigration, Braverman's speech has shown us the importance of being precise with what we say.

What is multiculturalism?

I saw a tweet defending the phrase, 'multiculturalism has failed', on the grounds that Braverman didn't mean what we think she means. Multiculturalism is, the author argued, differing views on citizenship and social behaviour. A multicultural society is one where, apparently, these different views live in isolation from each other.

That makes a degree of sense and it doesn't sound too healthy. A society where one group believe in women's rights and another don't won't work. A nation where one group defend LGBT citizens cannot live cohesively with parts of that society who seek to undermine said rights. In that sense, multiculturalism appears to be a bad thing.

Others, however, argue that multiculturalism is where many cultures live intertwined with each other.

A society where Caribbean carnivals happen one day, posh boat races the next, where fish and chip shops sit alongside Chinese takeaways, that's a very different form of multiculturalism to the one just referenced above.

This form of multiculturalism is many faiths living in harmony, people of all races getting along. It's a thriving, colorful, healthy society where an Indian can become the UK's Prime Minister and another Home Secretary (without needing any special quota to do so).

That's the UK that Braverman grew up in and benefitted from.

So what 'multiculturalism was the speech about?

Planned speech and dog whistles.

When Braverman stood up and gave her speech I doubt anyone in her team were shocked. Gasps of "Did she really just say that?" were likely few and far between.

This is because each and every word will have been carefully crafted. The intonations would be planned, perhaps even the body language at each point. Braverman isn't some rogue backbencher trying to make a new for herself, she's one of the UK's most senior politicians and will be surrounded by advisors of all kind.

It is therefore, only sane, to conclude that the wording used was exactly what was intended to be used.

"Dog Whistle" noun - a subtly aimed political message which is intended for, and can only be understood by, a particular demographic group.

The public outrage over the speech isn't, I believe, because we have a 'left-wing establishment press'. I believe it's because when you say "multiculturalism has failed" people instinctively think you are talking about the second type of multiculturalism. The type where many cultures are living side by side, as opposed to in separation.

Those defending Braverman's speech are doing so on two fronts. Racists are cheering it because they genuinely agree that side-by-side multiculturalism is bad. Those further-right on the political spectrum are cheering it because they believe she is talking about the separated multiculturalism.

"Those working in the Home-Office will mean [the separated multiculturalism]" one person told me.

That's fine if they do, but they will also know that a vast number of the public think it's the alternative.

Braverman's speech wasn't written by people with no grasp of the real-word. At least, I'm going to give them that credit. They knew full well the outrage that people will have, based on the belief that Braverman was complaining about there being too many bubble-tea restaurants. They will claim she didn't.

If you know people will take things 'the wrong way' why say it?

The phrase was precise, purposeful, and designed to do exactly what it has. To make people angry and to get a reaction.

The Conservatives, Braverman's party' are trailing in the polls. To a significant level. The last decade of Conservative political campaigning has been dominated by patriotism and national identity. This type of speech is designed to show that party as being 'tough' and of 'protecting British identity', especially when the government is under pressure for high levels of legal and illegal migration.

The speech will put the opposition Labour party into a corner. Do they defend 'multiculturalism'? If they do, Braverman will claim they are defending the separated kind. Conservatives will claim Labour will 'open the borders' and people will be put off voting for them. The polls may narrow.

But, most important to note is that the speech will resonate with a much further-right group of 'conservatives'. These are the type who have been flirting with nationalism for the last 10 years. They are people the Conservatives can't live without.

Braverman's speech will be defended as "not racist" because "she didn't mean we don't like different cultures...". However, the dog-whistle has been blown. Racists will have heard exactly what they wanted to hear, they will be drawn to voting for Conservatives.

The speech was precise. It will be defended on technicalities and "she didn't mean that...". But Braverman knows exactly what she was doing when she said that.

If you have to defend what you've said, by explaining that you didn't really mean what most people think you mean, then you've got to change something.

Be more precise in your speech, or be honest about what you meant.

Braverman blew a dog-whistle and she knows it.