The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Labour's response to the riots has to be conservative and radical

The party must defend the integrity of family life and those institutions that promote the common go

By Jonathan Rutherford Published 17 August 2011 19:10

Listen to the silence. The enormity of what happened across England last week has been slowly buried under acres of commentary and analysis of why it happened. But what did happen? What happened was the slow simmering, everyday brutality of life on the streets of our cities and large towns exploding and bringing us to the edge of the complete breakdown of civil order. As mobs steamed their way up high streets smashing and looting they gave clarity to the fear, casual violence and nihilism that has become a part of the fabric of our everyday life. This is England. Look at the destruction, feel the fear; this is what we have made of our country. The problem belongs to all of us, and no amount of retributive justice will solve it.

England has a long history of rioting during periods of economic distress. The events have elements in common with this history and others unique to modern consumer society. They would include: adolescent, exhilarating excitement; rage against the police; the summer holidays; the historical social predicament of unoccupied young men; an over-inflated sense of entitlement to have what one wants; parts of a younger generation detached from the moral norms and obligations of adult society; the experience of poverty, despair and hopelessness; and a deep sense of "I don't care". Above all the events combined the nihilism of the dispossessed and the narcissism of the consumer. Why have you done this? "Because we can".

Society in the big cities lacks neighbourly solidarity and adults are frightened of the young. Fear of crime is fear of youth. Watch Jo Frost on TV, a lot of parents are anxious about saying "no" to their own children. Market choice targeted at children is a direct challenge to the kinds of parental intuition and authority that creates the emotional boundaries in which children flourish. Adult society has abandoned young people in areas of our cities to a street culture of casual mugging, knives and at the extreme, guns. It has abandoned a small minority to an anomic existence of hopeless parenting, no jobs or rubbish jobs.

A small number are disconnected from family, social norms and adult authority. They are the dangerous ones. They have their own gang culture for mutual aid and their chief value is money. They will use violence to avoid the mortification of shame. The dangers of this nihilistic gang culture have been repeatedly voiced, particularly by black community workers, but they have been ignored by wider society.

The influence of this small core ripples out to terrorise and draw in a wider circle of young people in deprived areas who themselves hover between the social abyss and some sort of decent life. And the ripples extend further outward to other young people who are attracted to the glamour and excitement of the gangsta life. These concentric circles of fear and seduction, uninterrupted by adult and governmental authority, found a common activity and were a core around which swirled larger numbers of voyeurs and thrill seekers.

And as communities reeled under the impact of the violence they were impotent to respond. The police do not have the integration into localcommunities to ensure order. They are a state imposed force. Absolutely necessary yes, but without connections to forms of organised community authority, limited in what they can achieve. Where was the community out on the streets after night fall? Where were the civic leaders rallying the citizenship to bring their children and young people to order? Only in ethnic groups where there were strong family ties and kinship systems and often faith based networks did order prevail - amongst Muslims in Birmingham, the Hassidic Jewish community in Stamford Hill, the Turkish and Kurdish communities in east London. They came out onto the streets and ensured peace and safety.

And this brings us to the lamentable failure of our political class which is disconnected from the life of the people. The Tories were out of their depth. Cameron and Johnson are both revealed in all their mediocrity. They know nothing about the society they live in. Cameron's pro-social politics lie in tatters as he defends the neo-liberal status quo with bigger, more aggressive state intervention. The people who have talked the most sense are the community workers who work the street and their message is not one that Labour has always wanted to hear - it is about the breakdown of family life, the loss of social structures of authority, the absence of boundaries and discipline. It is a conservative message, but it is not a Tory one. It is half the issue in hand. The other half is the way the social and economic relations of capitalism, if left unchecked, destroys traditions and social authority and produces consumer narcissism and nihilistic cultures of violence. It is about the crushing effect of poverty and parents who have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet with no time for the children and no childcare. And as neuroscience is proving, it is about the emotional destruction of people's lives caused by childhood abuse, trauma and deprivation.

Labour has to own the conservative part of the story. The right cannot be allowed to bury the causes by framing the events as simply about moral decline and law and order. Labour has to be conservative in its defence of relational life, in its belief in the integrity of family life and in institutions that promote the common good. It must be for reciprocity - do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself. It has to be willing to make judgements about people's behaviour. And it has to be radical as well as conservative. This means a longer term strategy to end the neo-liberal hegemony and create an ethical economy whose primary purpose is jobs and a common prosperity. Decent jobs on a living wage up and down the country to give people hope and to rebuild our society. It means building community organisation and deepening and expanding democracy and so enabling people to find their voice and take power and responsibility,including the disaffected. They too must sit at the common table.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: London Riots Labour

More from Jonathan Rutherford

View the discussion thread.

26 comments

Fri, 2011-09-23 20:00 — Patrick Edwards (not verified)

wow! I read an article on the riots that is razor sharp in its analytical scope, frames the issues in a way that is thought provoking and rigorous and extends the stakes of the debate to more than just the zero sum gain of our network commentators who have to find the truth against a news deadline or those in power whose responses on the whole has been shaped by the best position to hold in order to maintain it.

I don't agree with everything that Jonathan says, but the disagreements I have raise sufficient questions that could be the basis for a sustained discussion and dialogue. Yet after a brilliant piece like this what is predictably depressing is the absolute drivel that follows in the threads that follow it. In a way does this not typify the sorry state we are in? The sad inability to actually debate issues, that we have every right to disagree with, in such as way as to at least find route to take the next best step to make our aociety a better place is perhaps the most poignantly revealing deficit on show. Perhaps the silence that Jonathan refers to embraces the singular lacking that many of us have to deploy the tools of engagement to make us true partioipants in this so called participative democracy.

Wed, 2011-08-17 21:52 — Daniele1

B.Small:
the only problem with your view of Britain is that this isn't "a free society".A free society wouldn't have institutionalised social apartheid, which is what public schools and the monarchy represent in this country, which means that the idea of equal opportunity is a sick farce.
i am no defender of communism, so you are wasting your time there.
That doesn't mean I think unrestrained capitalism, ie. greed is a good idea either. This society is so unequal and the rich are so obscenely rich that it wouldn't surprise me they end up locked up for their own protection as in the USA or Brazil. This total freedom TO get rich doesn't bring happiness, only hate and resentment. We have seen a glimpse of that last week.
How about freedom FROM? freedom from abject poverty? freedom from exploitation? freedom from abuse by the rich and powerful? that is a much more valuable freedom than freedom TO do what the hell you like.
The law of the jungle is for the jungle, not for human societies.

Wed, 2011-08-17 22:18 — lowerarchy (not verified)

I agree with Daniele.

Who is society organised for, the majority or the elites?

Communism hasn't been tried yet - the USSR and its colonies certainly weren't. Hitler lead the National Socialist Party but that wasn't solcialist either.

Society is broke - but not because of the ordinary folk, but because of the economic system. It's too late for tinkering, what's needed is a full revision.

But the powerful interest groups and their apologists (see above) will fight any sensible changes - they're alright Jack!

Wed, 2011-08-17 23:09 — Luddite (not verified)

Labour's response to the riots has to be conservative and radical The party must defend the integrity of 'family life' and those institutions that promote the common good. Why don't you just say your sorry.

Thu, 2011-08-18 17:53 — Raymond Dance (not verified)

What is the difference between someone who loots a shoe shop and a BBC executive who takes a £250,000 redundancy payment eight months before she is due to retire on a large pension anyway. Or a GP who pays himself £350,000pa out of money that should have been spent on his patients. Or a Member of Parliament who passes his garage off as a constituency office in order to steal £115,000 in bogus expenses. Looting is now the British way of life.

Wed, 2011-08-17 23:20 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Rebel Without A Cause, High School Confidential, The Blackboard Jungle are just some of the better known US teenage movies of the fifties. We think the British countered with 'The Blue Light'; Constable Dixon laying down the law to tearaway Dirk Bogarde.
'Rock Around the Clock' and 'The Wild One' were banned initially.
'A Clockwork Orange' and 'If' also stimulated teen hormones. Just look at the Bullington Clubbers.
Teen movies of the last decade, not to mention video games such as Grand Theft Auto, egg on their teenage audiences or users to take anti-social and thoroughly unrealistic attitudes to local communities.
The backlash may politicise these teens or make them more criminal in outlook.
It's a case of 'wait and see!'
At present it seems to be a case of rebelling without a cause.
The judges are now enjoying earning their salaries paid by the taxpayer. Expect harsh justice - not equity!

Hard Case

Thu, 2011-08-18 00:01 — Anton Jury (not verified)

It is like a game of Chess to these Politicians !

Thu, 2011-08-18 18:21 — Bodva (not verified)

@Tired Of Battling Through

I agree. See letter in yesterday's Guardian on police tactics

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/riot-tactics-left-police-flatfo...

You are right. We need jobs, millions of jobs.

Thu, 2011-08-18 18:31 — historybuff

I'm sorry all of you are talking at hopelessly crossed purposes.

One side insists the welfare state and the entitlement mentality is to blame. This, combined with the increasing materialism and crudity of our culture is a recipe for steady, if not rapid, decline in our economy and social cohesion.

The other side, the Left, still insists there isn't enough state support for education, health, housing, public works etc.

Meanwhile the problems continue to fester, and bearing in mind our political gridlock and the inevitable intervention of lawyers and judges to knock down most proposals, very little is likely to be done.

In my opinion, lifting the financial burdens on small and medium sized businesses would be a very good start; commercial rents, local rates and property taxes, payroll taxes etc. are what is preventing a rejuvenation of our country. What most people don't understand is that the shops looted and destroyed will not be coming back because they have no incentive. That means higher unemployment, more social problems, lower revunue for public services.

Thu, 2011-08-18 01:12 — Adam (not verified)

Well put, great article.

Thu, 2011-08-18 02:19 — Tom (not verified)

The "Great Discussion" that various analysts and politicians keep talking about won't happen for several reasons.

First, many of the Tory Powers that Be refuse to face the consequences of their policies. How do we fix the economy? First step: tax cuts. Hang on a minute. How does this help unemployed people?

What do you base that on? Actual data or skewed data from some obvious mistaken "liberal" economic think tank? As if the only correct economists are conservative Keynesians who went to Eton with Cameron.

The massive global debt will never be paid off. More countries are going under. And, the EU won't bail out all of them.

This means every country for themselves. Forget the "Special Relationship" with the States. Also, when Cameron talks about "getting tough", is he aware that people of color in the States make up a huge percentage of the prison population. Privatizing the jails to handle all of these new inmates is one way to help revitalize the economy. Not.

Fri, 2011-08-19 00:52 — George Hallam (not verified)

@historybuff
Yep. I agree with most of this.

But how are you going to change things.

For axample changing commercial rents is a 'ask'.

To do it you need a lot of politicl power.

If you have that all sorts of things can change - not just rents.

We could re-establish British maunfacturing industry for example.

That would enerate millions of jobs.

Thu, 2011-08-18 09:43 — lowerarchy (not verified)

B Small

Your caps lock's broken and nobody believes you're an adult.

Thu, 2011-08-18 09:46 — swatantra

Labours response has got to be common sense and innovative and tough on those that abuse the system and opportunities.
Labours response has got to be for the common good of the people and for the common wealth of the nation.

Fri, 2011-08-19 03:35 — zhongkil

We welcome your come
our website: ▲ http://www.goodshopping100.com ▲　
BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!!
SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!!
FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!!
Believe that you will fall in love with it
╭⌒╮⌒╮.’,”’,,’,.”,,’,”,.
╱◥██◣”o’,”’,,’,.”.”,,’,.
｜田｜田田│ ”,,’,.’,”’,,’,.”
╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬e:→
http://www.happyshopping100.com

Thu, 2011-08-18 10:59 — mediumal57

The main job of the Labour Party is not to get wrong-footed and allow itself to be portrayed as soft on crime or criminality. They have fallen into that little trap set for it by the Right for decades. Neither however should the Party slavishly go along with all the Right's so called tough new policies.

If past experience is anything to go by the Tories will announce a few headline grabbing measures of the "short sharp shock" variety at their Party's Conference to appease the "hang 'em a flog 'em" brigade which will be then quietly forgotten about when the outraged comments in the Daily Mail recede as Middle England settles down again and continues to go about its business as usual without having to worry too much about those awful sink-estates in Brixham or West Brom.

Unfortunately because Labour has always seen itself as on the side of the oppressed and disadvantaged it cannot afford to ignore Brixham and West Brom. What it also cannot afford to do however is carry on business as usual. There needs to be a complete rethink on how the Party re-engages with these communities. The biggest victims of crime and anti-social behaviour lest we forget isn't Mr & Mrs Worcester of Acccia Avenue Middle England. It's little, usually ignored, Joe Black of Nelson Mandela Gardens Peckham.

Thu, 2011-08-18 11:37 — lowerarchy (not verified)

Good point MedMal

The poor and disadvantaged suffer most from crime.

Of course, the biggest crimes are the colonial period with international slavery and the class system with wage slavery.

See Mark Curtis' Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam for evidence of the UK's sponsorship of so-called terrorist organisations to further 'national interests'. He shows (quite topical) how our secret service has organised riots, assassinations and political violence in other countries - an example being in Iran in 1953 to topple democratically-elected govt. (See Documentary film - American Coup for more details).

Fri, 2011-08-19 14:45 — treborc

I'm off to a march with Bob Crow, Nia Griffiths MP. tomorrow in Llanelli to march for the two lads killed in the strike of railways men in 1911.

The army fired on two lads sitting on a wall watching the strike take place, after the shooting Churchill felt it has stopping him from kicking the shit out of the strikers.

Funny how we forget, those were the last time the army was used or shot people in the UK.

Socialism has changed from my day even with labour now you have the idea that welfare is wrong, if you do not work you do not have a council house, and what do they then say most Asian are in work, good for them.

I still have a hell of a time seeing the difference between Blair and Cameron, anyone see the death of Private Gray last night on TV, shocking death of a young soldier.

labourism.

Thu, 2011-08-18 14:27 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

In my view we can only help maintain the integrity of family life and institutions that promote the common good. This is because we're a dynamic society based on consent. I personally think it's very dangerous to consider fixing systems (the quickest and cheapest way to effect change that can be counted statistically) - in order to dump a burden onto front-line workers which makes them responsible or indeed gives workers room to make judgements that may impinge upon the civil liberty and freedom of ordinary members of the public.

Common knowledge and simple trust is very important but mustn't be used to turn citizen against citizen and it mustn't be hi-jacked by the executive effects of target driven workers, I think.

There may be important differences between the so-called disaffected and those Harriet Harmen perhaps might describe as dispossessed. Differences involving personal privacy, dignity, autonomy and integrity- things that many working in the public realm can't help or understand.

Fri, 2011-08-19 14:53 — tbrooks

I want to challenge a particular view expressed. Why should Labour become more "conservative"?

Labour should not try to outflank the Conservative Party on which party can be best conservative (aside from the further confusion of adopting such a strategy).

Labour should better focus on progressive values that resonate with the public. A vibrant support network at home is perhaps one such value. However, focussing on the family raises questions of whose family and issues concerning whether Labour is more supportive of some forms of family over others -- each possibly in conflict with the progressive egalitarianism we should support.

Let's drop the conservativism. The public will not vote Labour in support of conservativism. But let's win on values such as supporting a healthy home environment and safe streets. Progressives can win if they aren't shy about proclaiming who they are.

Thu, 2011-08-18 14:38 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

Danielle;
"The law of the jungle is for the jungle, not for human societies."

It might interest you to know that the chap who is currently the head of our Supreme Court once in the House of Lords described our charity world as
"this wonderful jungle".

The UK constitution is largely unwritten which helps us as a nation remain flexible, generous and dynamic in my view. Let's not be afraid of this wonderful jungle we live in.

Thu, 2011-08-18 14:40 — Tired Of Battling Through (not verified)

This is rubbish. Prior to the riots the police did not respond to low level crime when you called them which allowed greater crimes to take place and a sense of immunity to grow in the veins of criminals. I am a Labour supporter but I hang my head in shame as we were in power for 13 years and gangs, social disconnect and the gap between rich and poor happened on our watch. Why did we not create jobs for young people during the boom years of the Labout government. Many Labour MPs - even today - as as disconnected from reality as the Tories.

Wed, 2011-08-17 19:22 — Bodva (not verified)

This is a bit woffley.

For a clear analysis try this:

http://www.lpbp.org.uk/home

Wed, 2011-08-17 19:42 — Daniele1

An excellent analysis.Well said.
Only 2 elements of the perfect storm have been left unsaid: the obscene gap between rich and poor in this country and the role of the vile British press which contributes to young people's sense of alienation by brainwashing them with visions of celebrity lifestyles and the obsession of consumer goods.