Sunday review on Monday: “Out of the ashes: Britain after the riots” by David Lammy

by Anthony Painter

There is a new moralist movement in British politics. It binds red Tory and blue Labour and even Ed Miliband and David Cameron from time to time. The latter was at it this weekend in his “Christian country” lecture. This new moralism emphasises traditional values, family, responsibility, community, right and wrong, security, good and bad. A judeo-christian thread runs through it. David Lammy’s Out of the Ashes: Britain after the riots is, in part, a significant centre-left expression of this new moralism.

The definitive argument of the new moralism is that Britain has faced two liberal revolutions in the last fifty years: social liberalism in the 1960s and economic liberalism in the 1980s. Both were disastrous and explain why our society faces its current travails. It’s why people are rioting.

This “two revolutions” marker is there in red Toryism, blue Labourism, and it’s in Out of the Ashes:

“The problem is that we can never have enough. The revolutions that shaped modern Britain – the social liberalism of the 1960s and the economic liberalism of the 1980s – have schooled us to think of ourselves as individuals living lives free from each other”.

The clear target of the new moralists are liberals of all types and their individualistic ways. This leads to some very bold claims. According to Lammy, liberals “emphasise the right of newcomers to speak in a language of their choosing and to dress, associate, and worship as they wish”. I’d be very surprised to find many liberals who would argue that a society or community shouldn’t have a common language. Liberals extol individual freedom, but I’d be amazed to hear anyone other than a libertarian deny the intrinsically social nature of humankind. Lammy ultimately pulls back from a full frontal assault – even on a caricatured liberalism. For the simple fact is, we are as a society predominantly liberals at heart – to varying degrees. The interesting question is why? And this strikes right at the heart of the new moralist position on the “two revolutions” as betrayals.

That society changed in significant ways in both the 1960s and 1980s is not in dispute. Equally, there is little question that it became more individualistic. This had its costs and benefits, but it happened for completely explicable reasons – and all over the western world. Let me try a different and more historical narrative to explain why changes happened across societies like ours.

The real cause of the 1960s social revolution was peace and prosperity rather than the Rolling Stones or women’s lib. The baby boomers were the first generation to come of age after world war II. They had a greater desire for personal freedom – free from conscription but not annihilation. Imminent invasion such as was faced in the 1930s tends to focus minds; conversely the distant threat of nuclear holocaust paradoxically liberates them. Alongside this, new communication and product technologies with mass production techniques, powerful labour interests meaning that wealth was spread and a Keynesian welfare state meant that there was a degree of economic freedom also. Mixed with the expansion of education at all levels, it would be surprising had there not been a desire to be more socially free. And that is why the sexual and social revolution happened and it has continued since.

As global power shifted, technological advance accelerated and communication networks became increasingly globalised; primary resources became concentrated on unstable and authoritarian parts of the world; labour power became more assertive rather than balancing; the welfare state became increasingly open to abuse moving away from its original Beveridgean contributory principles; and the international division of labour shifted towards newly emergent economies. The post-war consensus just couldn’t hold. At that moment there was a body of ideas, neo-liberalism, ready to step into the vacuum – disastrously as it happened.

Without falling into a deterministic Marxist way of thinking, it’s hard to come to any other conclusion than men and women do make history but not in circumstances of their own choosing. Economic, social, technological and cultural forces simply overwhelm politics. We don’t get to determine our fate – we can only choose to influence it in the ways available to us based on wise judgment. The risk of the new moralism is that it fails to embrace this humility before history – it is Canute-esque.

Where Out of the Ashes has a much stronger argument is at the local level. While our room for manoeuvre is narrower than we would like at a national or global level, we can influence positively those around us and our communities. Whether you are a liberal or a new moralist, it seems sensible to devise public interventions that enhance security, create opportunity, and encourage behaviours that promote well-being. Beveridge was a liberal remember and he devised a welfare system based on contributory insurance. It seems strange for the new moralists to co-opt the odd liberal or two without conceding their own intellectual assertions about the nature of liberalism.

It is absolutely right to expect absent fathers to make some contribution to their family, even if they are absent – the well-being and security of their kids depends on it. But it is also worth bearing in mind that the 1950s family wasn’t without its many injustices and miseries – especially for women. We need to be smarter about how we use public policy to encourage networks of support around families, around those just starting out in the jobs market, those who have fallen on hard luck, and the elderly who need personal care and support.

Out of the Ashes makes a powerful case for interventions of this sort. It ties Lammy’s personal life story to commentary on our times and makes many sensible public policy suggestions along the way and in a very readable fashion. The story of his relationship with his father is deeply affecting.

All of this works very well so the new moralist undercurrent becomes a distraction. Once it’s there though it can’t go unchallenged. We need a politics that creates a better future, rather than one that sermonises and lectures. Lammy’s book is thankfully not in that mode at all.

It is where the new moralism will head though – over-serious, educated, superior, political insiders with religion only slightly out of view in their top pocket, telling people how to live their lives while mining moral anxiety for their own ends.

Surely it is much better for the centre-left to confront the modern life as we find it, not as we would like to find it. Leave the “Christian country” moralising to David Cameron. Or has the global financial crisis been such a shock that faintly pious moralism is the only sanctuary to which we can turn?

Anthony Painter is an author and a critic.


Tags: , , , ,


10 Responses to “Sunday review on Monday: “Out of the ashes: Britain after the riots” by David Lammy”

  1. swatantra says:

    Absolute rubbish. Nothing makes me more angry than :
    ‘Surely it is much better for the centre-left to confront the modern life as we find it, not as we would like to find it.’
    No it isnt. Too often we are left with picking up the pieces o a broken society of broken families of broken individual, of rough sleepers or drug addicts of dysfunctonal families and ferral youngsters. Because we allo things to slide. Its all atremendous burden on State Services . Whenwe could have taken firm fair measures to stop the problems in te first place. Its the one thing I have against Labour: its too often given to pandering som individual and groups and taken in by sob stories. And its all too counterproductive. It doesn’t solve the root problems but allows these to perpetuate in the 2nd and 3rd generation. Its avbout time this let them do as they like balony stopped.
    Therefore I shall be supported the prosal for incentives for married couples. Its a small step to repairing society. altough I disassociate myself from the religious mumbo jumbo.

  2. John P Reid says:

    Out of the Ashes makes a powerful case for interventions of this sort. It ties Lammy’s personal life story to commentary on our times and makes many sensible public policy suggestions along the way and in a very readable fashion. The story of his relationship with his father is deeply affecting.

    After the 1985 riot, Benrie Grant convinced the Labour party that the riots were due to an Opressive state and that by throwing money at Minority ethnic’s rights and welfare, and were’nt due to individual reposniblity, Thathcer manamged to convince the public other wise David Owen, who at one point said that the Left infultrating the party with thier vew of outer of parmalient protest to control the authorities, but at the same time owen said that money should be ploughed into the farm, In 2002 the Evening Standard had A Article On DNA being Avalable In the Re- Opening of the Blaklelock Enquiry (it’s Online)

    Saying Of the 6 Key Main Suspects All But two have gone on to be respectable memebers of society, One of Whom Is one of the highest People up on the Estate,
    although one is A member of the nation of islam
    and alot of police at that time raised a fortune for the miners at the miners strike, see polfed.org, batlte of orgreave

  3. Mike Homfray says:

    Largely agree with what Anthony is saying here. I think there is a difference between libertarianism and social liberalism.

    For example, I think that the extension of rights to gay and lesbian people and their relationships is clearly something which would be viewed as social liberalism. Is it necessarily individualistic, or actually giving individuals a stake in the broader society?

    What about some of the other liberal reforms. Abortion – well, I believe in the woman’s right to choose. Divorce. Interesting that the pro-marriage lobby fails to talk about the question of why marriages do break down.

    Many of the social problems which exist have nothing to do with liberalising the law. Drugs, for example, are not legal and never have been. People sleeping rough has nothing at all to do with liberal legislation and plenty to do with the removal of collective responsibility by the State for single blokes in housing need, even if they have recently been in the forces (the correlations between the two are notable). There has been no order from the State about methods of parenting, and everyone else on the Continent seems to manage quite well without thrashing children in schools, so that myth can also be discarded.

    Incentives for married couples are entirely pointless. The reason why those relationships stay together longer is because people in stronger and more stable relationships are more likely to get married. Make current cohabitees marry and you would soon see the figures change.

    There are issues we can look at – such as the role of young men, the materialism of contemporary society, and the fact that with winners in a capitalist system, you also get losers – but don’t expect any easy answers

  4. swatantra says:

    Bernie was right at the time. There was rampant discrimination in soviety and in the Ploice Force. And that continued to immer until the stephen Larence incident. It only when Ken Livingstone and later Starw who addressed it by setting up the Enquiry and revealved the extent of institutional racism embedded in society and the Police. The Labour Govt to its credit set up the CRE and boufght in Anti Discrimination legislation and Equalites Acts.
    Since then the situation has improved dramtically . So the Tottenham rioters cannot blame it on racism or poverty but themselves. They have themselves to blame for not taking making the most of the money thrown at them by raising themselves. They should stop making excuses and blaming others.
    As to the Blakelock incident, it was shown that Silcott was not the culprit. But we don’t know who. Its tricky re-opening cold cases.
    We’ve got the Lawrence Court case at the moment, the evidence is not that strong, it could contaminated. The defendents are scum, but they could get off on a technicallity, on bad forensic evidence. I could say the same of the Blakelock suspects. And an aquital in both cases would be a disaster.So let sleeping dogs lie, unless you have olid proff and witnesses.

  5. @swatantra

    I’m afraid you’ve fallen upon a similar caricature as the ‘new moralists’. Worth reading this para again (which re-reading shouldn’t have the first ‘absent’- apols):

    “It is absolutely right to expect absent fathers to make some contribution to their family, even if they are absent – the well-being and security of their kids depends on it. But it is also worth bearing in mind that the 1950s family wasn’t without its many injustices and miseries – especially for women. We need to be smarter about how we use public policy to encourage networks of support around families, around those just starting out in the jobs market, those who have fallen on hard luck, and the elderly who need personal care and support.”

  6. donpaskini says:

    Good article (though I find it hard to believe that the Lammy book is as good as this makes it sound).

    One small quibble, not sure I agree with “the welfare state became increasingly open to abuse moving away from its original Beveridgean contributory principles” in the 1970s/early 80s.

    Rather than the problem being that the welfare state was ‘open to abuse’, I think the problem was that the Beveridge welfare state was too much about doing things to people, rather than enabling them to do things for themselves. This top down approach then ran up against the rising tide of individualism, and the rest we know.

    This has implications for the modern day debate – as we keep on looking back about how to get back to the golden age of Beveridge, even though today’s challenges and context are very different from those of the 40s.

  7. John P Reid says:

    The defendents are scum, but they could get off on a technicallity, on bad forensic evidence. I could say the same of the Blakelock suspects. And an aquital in both cases would be a disaster.
    I sort of agree but at the endof the day getting off on A technicality still emans that soemone is not the Culprit as You say,( why was the orignal aquitall a disaster, two of them changed their minds half way through their confession that they would have like a Solicitor present afterall, and the other one had spelling mistakes changed on his statement, Same as you say of the Lawrence suspects the evidnece WAS(is)not that great,

    The view that The Stephen Lawrence suspects did it, Is Based on the View that they’re not nice people and Also that because the Daily mail said they did it, it must be true.
    How do we know they’re not Nice people ,have we met them, The Guildford 4 shared a squat with other members of the IRA and one of them as wanted for killing a copper in Ireland, Now I don’t know the Guildford 4 But just because what I know of them doens’t mean that it’s possible ot say that someone might be A suspect of something there’s no proof they did ,jutst becuase what the Public know of them isn’t nice,
    After Colin stagg was cleared of Killing Rachel Nickel, the daily Mail ran An article full of hint and Inuendo saying that Stagg did it and what the Jury weren’t told,something that Stagg burnt a copy of It outside his house, Similar An old Tory Lord said in the Spectator that guildford 4 probably did it, Now obvioulsy they didn’t ,but the Guildord 4 had enough money from Champagne socialists to sue the Spectator, At the same time the Lawrence suspects have said they can’t afford to sue the daily Mail,
    Just becuase the Publc has the Perception that someone isn’t Nice or that A paper said they did it, Isn’t Proof beyond reasonable doubt that A jury should find them guilty of that crime,Even If there Is a public outcry that ,that there Is A person that has died in tragic circumstances and that they haven’t found justice.
    regarding the main Blakelock suspect who’s one of hte highest up on the Estate, It’s no wonder he says he wants the investigation wound up in interviews.

  8. swatantra says:

    The secret recording of the disgusting attitude of these scum should be an indication of how evil their intentions were.
    The secret recording of the GM Police and their Trainers would also indicate how corrupt and racist the Police were at that time.
    I’m generally not in favour of entrapment techniques or honey traps used by te police especially in the case of Stagg, or of stings used by newspaper reporters; there should be better ways of getting genuine confessions and witnesses. That is solid evidence.
    We know that sometimes agents and agent provacateurs can go ‘native’ as in the recent case of the demonstraters at the power plant. Their use can undermine a case. Same with the Guildford 4. Guilt by association. Unwarranted, just like the Bm 6 there was deep suspicion of the Irish after the IRA carried out their terrorists campaigns on the mainland. creating paranoia and irishphobia, similar to the islamaphobia we have these days.
    Its tough being a cop, because you hate it in your guts when villans get off scot free because of money and smart lawyers and twisting around Human Rights legislation.
    In general, the Police of today do a great job. But it wasn’t always the case 20 years ago. It was ore like Life on Mars.

  9. John P Reid says:

    The secret recording of the disgusting attitude of these scum should be an indication of how evil their intentions were- But this isn’t anythignt odo witht he tiral, When Silcott was interviewed After his release 8 years ago he said that the kids who he heard cheering felt that “Blakelock got what was coming to him” and If someone says somethign racist it doens’t mean that they have actually killed that person,Or Bernie grant would have been Charged for Blakelocks murder when he said 14 times that IT was A bloody good hiding” regarding the GM police trainees at the Manchester training schools, Undercover filming of their raicsm, 6 years ago,Entrapment as you said But whats that got to with london Police 26 years ago.

    “deep suspicion” as you put it isn’t the same as having a phobia of someone though

  10. Henrik says:

    Yeah, comrades, if we don’t like a verdict, let’s just roll straight over one of the founding principles of the English Common Law and just keep putting people in court until we get a result, right?

    I have no idea whether this particular crowd of racist arseholes actually did murder young Lawrence, although what circumstantial evidence from the time I’ve seen has been pretty compelling; that doesn’t matter one bit. They were charged, prosecuted and acquitted. A civil action was attempted, with negative results. I feel desperately sorry for the Lawrences, but there it is.

    Of course, this is a matter of both principle and equality of all before the law, so I expect the usual suspects will now explain why these are old-fashioned things, with which the Party should have no truck if it is to form the vanguard fraction of the mass revolutionary movement.

Leave a Reply