Dee Doocey writes: Riots – a case for reason and not posturing

The TV comedy The Thick of It brilliantly satirised the tendency of New Labour to govern by ‘initiative’. Politics was reduced to public relations. Policies were created on the hoof with an eye to the next morning’s headlines.

If you thought those days ended at the last general election, think again. The recent riots should have given everyone pause for thought. Instead, many politicians and commentators were shooting from the hip or trotting out predictable responses.

Playing to the gallery pays only short-term dividends. Yes, “something must be done”. But politicians of all parties have a duty to think before they open their mouths, and not try to cash in on gut reactions or tabloid hysteria – despite the media’s hunger for sensational news and tendency to incite sensational comment.

Despite the pressure to meet emotionally-driven imperatives, only an intelligent, long-term, considered response will prevent a recurrence of these riots. What needs to be done?

First, we need moral clarity. Rioting, looting and arson are wrong. There are no excuses. But profound moral questions confront us all, not just the rioters. What sort of example is set by the scandals of executive pay or MPs’ expenses? How have we allowed society to corrode and consumer tat to become the pinnacle of people’s ambitions?

We must examine the deeper causes of the riots if we are to formulate an effective response. We should start by listening to people who work at the sharp end and know what they’re talking about, such as Camila Batmanghelidjh (Kids Company) or Decima Francis (The Boyhood to Manhood Foundation). The government’s inquiry into the riots, brokered by the Liberal Democrats, is a step in the right direction.

If the prescription is to be based on a rational diagnosis, it follows that knee-jerk responses must be rejected. And we’ve had no shortage of those since. People naturally feel angry and want action, but calls for plastic bullets, water cannon, spraying people with indelible dye, bringing in the army, shutting down social networks or ignoring human rights laws will do no good at all. If such measures were adopted, they would undo years of patient work to build police-community relationships.

David Cameron has set a poor example. His decision to hire an American ‘supercop’, without consulting the expertise available in our own country, is nothing more than grandstanding. And his simplistic suggestion that parents should take more responsibility for their children completely ignores the fact that many of the looters don’t have two parents.

The knee-jerk demand to evict rioters from social housing is simply irrational. Such a policy is inconsistent, since the families of offenders who are private tenants or home owners will not be made homeless. It is also counter-productive, since local councils will be under a duty to re-house most of the evicted families at a huge cost to the taxpayer. It is for the courts to decide appropriate punishments, not the local council.

The riots should force the government to rethink its policy towards the police. Now is not the time to cut police numbers. The riots stretched police resources to the limit. The government’s cut of £1.9bn in police budgets is equivalent to 16,000 officers – the same number of officers that were placed on London’s streets at the height of the riots. If police numbers continue to be reduced, it will be increasingly difficult to deal with future unrest.

Nor is it the time to introduce elected police commissioners. When police budgets are being cut, how can the government justify spending more than £130m on setting up the new system, £50m on each round of the elections and £112k in an annual salary to each commissioner? In particular, it would be highly irresponsible to launch a major overhaul of police administration in London only months before the 2012 Olympics (the greatest security challenge this country has ever faced in peacetime).

Talking of the 2012 Olympics, Adidas is a major sponsor of the Games but it is also one of several global brands that cash in unashamedly on gang culture. Adidas was quick to condemn the riots, yet is about to launch an advertising campaign featuring rapper Snoop Dogg, who personifies gang culture. Olympic sponsors should not be allowed to promote the gang culture that leads to violence on our streets.

Gang culture is to a significant extent a product of the criminal drugs trade. The ‘war on drugs’, launched by President Nixon forty years ago, has been counter-productive and an unmitigated disaster. Politicians’ macho posturing on drugs policy must end. We need a smarter approach.

Of all the knee-jerk responses, the most depressing has been the talk of a ‘broken society’. But, for every single rioter, there were a hundred volunteers cleaning up with their brushes and a thousand generous donors providing money and clothing for those burned out of their homes. Society may have corroded but it survives and in many areas prospers.

We must now focus on fostering a healthy society for all. If the sort of people who riot felt that they were part of society instead of feeling excluded, they would be less likely to riot in the first place.

Baroness Doocey is a member of the London Assembly and the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Read more by or more about , , , , , , or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

14 Comments

  • Daniel Henry 22nd Aug '11 - 12:12pm

    Great article. You’re right that the government seems to have had a bit of headless chicken response, sheepishly appeasing the tabloid media rather than showing leadership with a calm and rational response. Some individual lib dems (such as yourself) have made good speeches on the subject but we would be able to give a stronger message as an official lib dem response.

    Some of us have been talking about drafting an emergency motion for conference to set out Lib Dem opposition to kneejerk reactions and to set out a more positive response.

    What would you consider the key points for such a motion to cover?

  • Daniel Henry 22nd Aug '11 - 1:17pm

    Cheers Chris.

  • Sue Doughty 22nd Aug '11 - 2:08pm

    We have also submitted a motion on this along these lines. I have written about it here. http://socialliberal.net/2011/08/21/responding-to-the-riots/

    I totally agree about this nonsense being peddled about broken Britain – almost by definition it excludes those who need most of all to be included.

    Sue

  • Dee, you need to mention what percentage of the time is spent doing admin work. The constable should be able to spend 50% of the time on the beat. If these means changing the laws so less paperwork is required, so be it. One would not expect a plant operator only to spend 14-20 % of the time operating the equipment and the rest doing paperwork. When Qualiy Assurance was introduced it rapidly became a proliferation of red tape. The more intelligent companies rapidly reduced the paperwork to the core essentials: the same is true for Health and Safety. Too often rules are used to avoid making decisions.

    A study should be done where a statistically significant proportion of the police have every 15 mins of the working defined in order to reduce non-patrolling activities. In particular, attendance at meetings and courts appearances should be analysed to assess if time is lost because people fail to attend, bring relevant information or fail to make decisions. The Police need to prove the resources are being used effectively and could not be better used. Too many government bodies seem incapable of proving they are using their resources effectively. Many companies, in order to survive, have to deliver 5% savings annually.

  • Jonathan Hunt 22nd Aug '11 - 8:56pm

    Excellent summary, Dee, of what all true Liberals should believe. Look forward to a splended debate on one of these emergency motions at conference. Am also putting in something similar.

    But first we beed to restore the Liberal Democratic right of conference reps to choose emergency motions.

    An overbearing, self-important and autocratic policy committee has removed that long-held right and taken it upon itself to decide what is discussed. And cut back drastically on debating time with all kinds of ministerial speeches, or question times, if the ministers are not thought up to it.

    We may be coalition with the Tories, but that doesn’t mean we should ape their obsequious attitude to their masters.

    We need either to refer back its report or a motion of no confidence. Perhaps both.

  • Good article.
    But I’m a bit fed-up of hearing people mention bankers and MPs expenses, as I don’t think behaviour – however bad – by one group is any excuse for bad behaviour by another.

    If someone sets a bad example, no one else has to follow it.

    Using someone else’s faults and shortcomings to minimise your own actions?
    It’s like saying “yeah, I drove while drunk, but loads of other people do it.”

    Two wrongs don’t make a right.

  • dominic carman 23rd Aug '11 - 12:50pm

    Interesting to note today’s Guardian/ICM poll, where the British public strongly supports (70 % in favour) tougher sentencing for those involved in rioting. Of particular significance is that some 60% of respondents who identified themselves as Lib Dem voters believe that those convicted of riot-related offences should receive a tougher sentence than they might ordinarily expect:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/23/british-supports-harsher-sentences-riots

  • Sue Doughty 26th Aug '11 - 9:49am

    The draft motion for this is at http://socialliberal.net/2011/08/25/responding-to-the-riots-emergency-motion-to-conference/comment-page-1/#comment-10407
    Its too long at present and I aim today to amend it to make it crisper and also to reflect the current view re social media.
    Sue

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarAlex Macfie 5th Dec - 5:53pm
    Andrew T: Actually we have a tight targeting strategy. as reflected in constituency polls indicating large surges in seats we are targeting (e.g. F&GG, Esher...
  • User AvatarJames Brough 5th Dec - 4:25pm
    My thanks to Ollie for an interesting and thoughtful article. Great shame that some prefer to rest on their laurels and criticise, rather than offer...
  • User AvatarMatthew Huntbach 5th Dec - 4:24pm
    Peter Theresa May managed to preside over a completely shambolic attempt to deliver the referendum result. then The call for a second vote was yet...
  • User AvatarJohn Hall 5th Dec - 4:21pm
    Let us not forget that the Thatcherites quietly introduced PR for local elections into N Ireland to give minorities a fair voice, well before being...
  • User AvatarAndrew T 5th Dec - 4:14pm
    I'm dreading party infighting over a "poor" result. FPTP and the fact we are miles behind in all but a handful of constituencies combined with...
  • User AvatarPeter 5th Dec - 4:03pm
    A referendum is a mechanism for letting the people decide on an important single issue in an unambiguous way. It is normal convention for parliamentarians...
Tue 10th Dec 2019