by Peter Watt
Politics has never had such a bad name. Well, that is one of those slight exaggerations that help to colour opinionated blog posts like this one. But there is surely no doubt that politics and politicians are pretty unpopular at the moment. A succession of scandals, and a sense that they are in it for themselves, has meant that most people look on politicians with disdain. The ongoing hacking furore has just added to a sense that those inside of the elite bubble don’t live in the same space as the rest of the country. This isn’t just a UK problem, but that hardly matters to those who live here and are disdainful of UK politicians.
A large part of the problem is that people just don’t think that politicians get their lives. That the language used, and the solutions offered, just don’t resonate with their own experiences. For instance, for years people have felt that some young people have been out of control. Not many, certainly nothing like a majority, but some. No one seems to be in charge of them and they don’t seem to listen to anyone or respect or fear authority. They put their feet upon the seats of trains and tell the guard to “fuck off” if they are asked to move them, with no apparent sense of embarrassment. They mouth off at anyone who looks at them in the wrong way and are never at school, college or work. Normal deterrents, like parental sanction, fear of arrest, fines, public shame or worse, don’t seem to work.
Over the years, politicians’ responses have included more education, boot camp style discipline, national service, more youth clubs or more benefits. Most people knew that there were elements of a solution in all of these, that some would benefit from each. But they also knew that it wouldn’t help those who were really out of control, because the problem for them was something else. It was a problem with parenting or rather the lack of parenting.
Politicians from the right would demand tough love, and those from the left more understanding. But people out there knew that the real problem was that for some family life was not providing the support, discipline and example that we all need to become responsible adults. In fact, for some family life was providing exactly the opposite. It was nurturing irresponsibility and lessons in how to operate outside of the mainstream.
We can argue all we like about how this has happened. I think that the state has become responsible for too much that in the past families would have taken care of themselves. Others may disagree. But what cannot be argued is that for years people have known that the problem existed. Politicians have occasionally made the right noises, for instance the “respect agenda” under Tony Blair, indicating that they also got it. But all to often they have confused dealing with this problem with policies aimed at improving aspiration, expanding education or the provision of extra youth services. Of course these things matter: but only if you and your family value them. If there are no jobs and you want one, then unemployment is the problem. If there are jobs and you can’t be arsed to get one, then it isn’t.
And so to the riots, or copycat looting and thieving as it actually was. This was an opportunity for politicians to get it. To show that they understood what was going on. Well, if first impressions count: then they failed. The impression was that David Cameron and Boris Johnson were reluctantly dragged back from holiday. That Ken Livingstone couldn’t do anything but make cheap political points placing the blame on the closure of youth clubs and the “cuts”. David Cameron stood on the steps of Downing Street on Tuesday, while shops were looted a couple miles away. Never had the political classes looked so utterly clueless. And people will have noticed. The tone taken by the prime minister, Boris and Ken on Wednesday was noticeably more strident. Time will tell if it is too little too late as far as the public is concerned.
To be fair, Ed Miliband has been much clearer and tougher, striking a much more realistic tone. But he is hampered by 13 years of Labour failure to deal with this problem. Of course much improved for many under Labour. But the numbers opting out of the mainstream went up as it had under Tory governments. And people out there know that, because they saw it with their own eyes.
So what is to be done? Well a bit of political leadership wouldn’t go amiss for a start. The last few days have been embarrassing for the country and frightening for people who saw their streets burn. There are some honourable exceptions, but on the whole politicians need to wise-up and perhaps become a bit more humble. Just because it is “your” constituency, doesn’t mean that you understand exactly what is going on. Or, if you do, you need to be a bit better at showing that you do.
What is actually needed is an eclectic response of the best from the right and left wings of the debate. The first response has to be to vigorously impose order and protect people and property. And to be seen to be doing so. Now is not the time for understanding. So if curfews are sometimes needed, then let’s have them. If the army can help when the police are overstretched, then so be it. Let’s look again at police numbers and demand tougher sentencing. It is the primary responsibility of government to protect the people; so they should get on with it. On the whole, Ed Miliband has done better on calling for this than the prime minister has done in delivering it. But Ed has sadly been undermined by some of his own party, who cannot help politically point scoring by blaming the cuts.
The second response is trickier. You can’t solve the long-term problem just by locking people up. We also need to accept that there are a small number of families and individuals who need some serious help. They themselves may well be reluctant to accept that they need help, and the approaches needed may be time and resource intensive. They will probably be occasionally draconian. But unless we tackle them, their kids, and their kids’ kids, will suffer. And so will we all.
Peter Watt is a former general secretary of the Labour party.
Tags: cuts, Peter Watt, riots, young people
‘I think that the state has become responsible for too much that in the past families would have taken care of themselves.’
I often hear this argument and I am confused. When I was a kid and I vomited in my bedroom, my mum and dad cleared it up. There wasn’t a Vomit Sanitation Outreach Worker sent from Whitehall.
Given we don’t even have universal childcare (nothing like it!) I’m genuinely perplexed as to what this means.
John West, whenever someone feels the need to add the word ‘genuine’ you do wonder! But to take your comment at face value, I means whole host of things from the whole notion of caring for older relatives, child care reading with kids and on and on. I don’t think that the state shouldn’t be involved in these things as much as I think that people/families should be involved themselves more.
Lots of sensible points but I think theres another, short-term factor, the way that many on the mainstream Left have made Violence against Property & The Police seem fashionable, since The Election. The nature of Modern media is endless repetition, ideas filter through.
You come from a very different Labour tradition but Ken Livingstone is your Candidate too.
@paul barker
” the way that many on the mainstream Left have made Violence against Property & The Police seem fashionable, since The Election.”
WOW! You get the prize for the stupidest comment I’ve read on the internet this week.
Well-considered article, Peter.
“The second response is trickier. You can’t solve the long-term problem just by locking people up. We also need to accept that there are a small number of families and individuals who need some serious help. They themselves may well be reluctant to accept that they need help, and the approaches needed may be time and resource intensive. They will probably be occasionally draconian. But unless we tackle them, their kids, and their kids’ kids, will suffer. And so will we all.”
I doubt that the number of such families is small, in any other sense than being a minority.
They are the way they are because that’s how their parents, and their parents’ grandparents, were brought up.
Some of these families are generations away from the most recent ancestor to subscribe to what we still call “our society’s values”. They have developed their own social values and to that extent they are a completely different culture. Naturally they don’t accept they need help. (The money, that’s not help, they’re entitled to it. It’s part of their culture.)
“… the approaches needed may be time and resource intensive.” They will indeed – the model is not that of social workers but that of missionaries.