Since the Tory conference 2007, there have been periods where every week or so, the Conservatives announce a new policy with which they hope to win over more votes. It seems to be the nature of politics these days; one doesn’t exist unless one is appearing in the media.
When announcing such policies, the Tories in question often indulge in hyperbole, blaming Labour, citing the end of Labour, citing the awakening of popular consciousness against Labour and so on, ad nauseam.
The last few weeks have seen such behaviour with regard to crime - knife crime at first, then moving to general crime and now it is the turn of youth crime. “Back public against crime - Tory” is the ridiculously jingoistic title of the BBC piece showcasing Dominic Grieve’s interview with the Indy. The Shadow Attorny General has been saying that we should give adults the right to intervene with any young person they feel to be acting in an anti-social manner.
Grieve has form in this regard; indeed the whole Conservative apparatus seems to be about little more than passing memos as to whose turn it is in front of the cameras or giving an interview. “We’ve done education, the economy, how to make fat people move their lazy arses…what about crime this week? Right, Mr. Grieve, you’re up.” Some might say this is the legitimate function of a parliamentary Opposition, but frankly I think the blatant opportunism cheaps the whole notion of politics.
There isn’t a person in their right mind who can’t see that every time Cameron, Clegg or their respective cronies come out with stuff like this, it’s merely about making Labour look bad. It’s not really a reflection of what they’re going to do when in office - indeed with all these pronouncements, it would be someone with a good memory who could actually list all these promises. Not to mention that the policies themselves are utterly ridiculous; give adults the power to tackle anti-social behaviour?
Er, what about when the adults are responsible for the anti-social behaviour? The Tories are still locked in this zone where young people are the root cause of all evil, whether driven to it by drink, drugs, family breakdown or whatever. The Tory answer is the same it has always been; uphold the nuclear family and send all the offenders to prison. My childhood wasn’t that long ago and frankly I think it would have been nightmarish had any adult had the right to challenge what us youngsters were up to.
There were plenty of times where we had the police called on us just for standing around in the street; can you imagine how the situation might have changed for the worse had an individual actually come out to give us abuse, high on the impunity which Mr. Grieve is talking about? On the few occasions were an adult did confront me, it was nothing to do with anti-social behaviour, it was because their kid and I had been knocking each other about and they didn’t want little Johnny getting hurt.
Grieve wants to cut down on the instances of police getting called to deal with every little incident - which sounds like a common-sense plan. However, in all the time I lived in my parental home, the police were called only once - after one of the local rich kids smashed our window with his air-rifle. My mother could have gone to see his mother, but really that would have achieved nothing; these kids were famous for getting everything their own way. So it was reported for the purposes of insurance.
The problem there wasn’t youth crime, it was inattentive parents. Everyone has experienced the type; they believe the sun shines out of their kid’s arse and believe their kid can do no wrong. Grieve’s plan won’t challenge that. Nor will it challenge the so-called feral youths; whilst I hate that term, there are in fact kids who walk around armed with knives, who will react defensively if grabbed by an unknown adult and ‘challenged’ about their behaviour.
Whilst it is undeniably the young person’s responsibility not to be carrying a knife, on the other hand, they carry these knives because they are the best means of defence should there be a spot of bother. Even in Canterbury, a virtual paradise by comparison to say Manchester, when the squaddies are out and about, I honestly feel like acquiring CS gas to carry on my person. Speaking of ‘a spot of bother’, how exactly (one wonders) does Mr. Grieve think an adult will deal with a fight in the street?
If an adult intervenes, they’re likely to be seriously hurt. This is why the police are specially trained. Breaking up a fight is not what Grieve would call vigilantism; I think it fairly falls under his view of challenging anti-social behaviour - but it does violate current police advice. Don’t get involved, call the police. I think that’s the most common sense angle - none of this nostalgia-based return to the supposed golden age when you could clip a youngster (yours or not) alongside the head and they’d quit their antics.
It is that blue-rinsed throwback to the 1950s which I think motivates Grieve in this instance - and is not just politically opportunistic, it is damn right irresponsible.
Posted by David Semple
Over the next few months, I hope to be writing several articles on the subject of post-Marxism, how this is interlinked with the struggle over the theory of hegemony and the resultant praxis that can be observed from different sides in the debate. I hope, by this, to (hopefully) encourage the active engagement
On Christmas Day, I sat amongst friends and family and together we observed the headlines of Harold Pinter’s death. Almost unanimously around the room there was an expression of unconcern, indeed a few jibes were made about the old man. I suppose it’s true that plenty can be found to poke, such as the petition Pinter signed in support of the freedom and fair trial of Slobodan Milosevic. However, there was a lot to admire also, I think.
Research has been keeping me busy recently; I’m researching the Gramscian concept of hegemony (and its subsequent evolutions) while at the same time trying to write a rather more limited critique of the work of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. In the meantime however, I stumbled across the
An excellent article by Frank Fisher
Over any holiday, online reading material tends to accumulate. Christmas 2008 has been no exception even though no few blogs are on vacation. One that I really wanted to challenge was the post over at Mil’s place entitled, “
David Harvey in his recent lecture “
Harvey goes on to illustrate how it is the black neighbourhoods of the United States who are bearing the brunt of the punishment (though even by Harvey’s own data, white working class areas are still suffering, so we shouldn’t overemphasize the racial aspect).
Sue Blackmore