Today's blog post is written by Runnymede research and policy analyst Phil Mawhinney

The UK Conservative Party is currently asking why only one in six black and minority ethnic (BME) voters plumped for them at the last election.  As the BME population increases – 16% by 2016 – and parliamentary majorities remain elusive, they know they have to think about this properly.

So how does the party view BME communities? David Cameron’s 2011 speech at the Munich Security Conference , widely reported as claiming that ‘state multiculturalism has failed’, gives some insight.  The basic argument, that ‘Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream’  was much-disputed at the time.

But recent research by social psychologists, discussed at an event earlier this month, critiques this understanding of multiculturalism, identity and ‘Britishness.’

One of David Cameron’s proposed solutions to the radicalization of young Muslims is to build a stronger ‘shared national identity’ to replace the different cultures living ‘separate lives’ apart from ‘the mainstream’. Multiculturalism has ‘failed’ because it has encouraged people in their culturally separatist identities at the expense of a shared national identity.

Research by Derek Heim and Christine Howe with young people challenges the assumption that BME people reject a national identity. They report that young people in different communities actually hold national identities at least as powerful as those held by white people. And rather than ethnic and religious identities eroding ‘Britishness’, they are in fact positively correlated with national identity.

So the idea that people should rid themselves of cultural identities in order to have a sense of shared ‘Britishness’ is not grounded in reality. The evidence suggests that maintaining cultural identities is actually helpful for building shared identities.

Plus, identity is not either/or, ‘cultural’ or ‘national’. Research by Caroline Howarth highlights the importance of encouraging people to develop complex multicultural identities, rather than choose between British, Jamaican, West African, Muslim, English etc. Other researchers back-up the point that Cameron’s concept of identity is just too simplistic.

Another important insight is about the role of leaders and wider society. Integration is a two-way process but is rarely discussed as such. For example, David Cameron said nothing in his speech about the racism and discrimination that young people continue to face. Heim’s research suggests that addressing this would improve their sense of Britishness.

Rupert Brown and Hanna Zagefka raised the point that society’s view of how to ‘accommodate’ minorities depends on whether it perceives them as a threat. Messages from political leaders and the media that encourage prejudice are therefore an active part of the process, making it more difficult for communities to integrate. Linking multiculturalism, Islam and terrorism in a speech at a security conference can be seen as one way of injuring society’s ability to live together.

Cameron’s speech was focused on the segregation of (some) Muslims. Heim’s main message in response might be that multiculturalism does NOT inhibit identifying as ‘British’. Research also shows that Muslims do not generally show a lack of commitment to Britain or enthusiasm for extremist politics. Indeed, the great majority of BME people identify with Britain.

So let’s use the scientific evidence we have to inform an accurate and positive understanding of how a multicultural society can function. The conservatives would do well to do this if they want to make serious inroads into ‘the Black Vote.’