The Foolishness of Interfering With the Family

Last week I lambasted commentators on the left for blaming the Government's economic policy for the senseless destruction seen in what is now being referred to as the 'England riots'. Shortly after writing that piece, however, I felt I had unfairly singled out the lefties for criticism. Many of those at the other end of the political spectrum have also come out with bonkers theories about the causes of the riots.

One such theory, repeated almost as if it were gospel by those on the right, is that a major factor in leading to the violence and looting was the failure of the last Labour Government to properly instil 'family values' in society.

Peter Oborne, for example, writing in the Telegraph, railed against the decay of family values under Blair and Brown:

Most disturbing of all was New Labour’s teaching on the family. Behind much of the outrage of the past few days lies the absent father, and the collapse of traditional marriage. Young children, boys in particular, need male role models. If they cannot find such figures at home, they will look elsewhere. Horrifically, this means joining the gangs that caused such mayhem and destruction.

He was joined by Daily Mail columnist, Melanie Phillips, who loves a good old moral panic even at the best of times:

When Labour came to power in 1997, it set about systematically destroying not just the traditional family but the very idea that married parents were better for children than any other arrangement.

So apparently, it is Tony Blair and the Labour party who are responsible for the destruction of families and the 'feral youth' roaming our streets.

The sheer ridiculousness of these comments is not immediately apparent. It is true that there are more households with fatherless families than ever before. It is equally true that there is a disproportionate number of young people in the criminal justice system who come from such families. To imply that the Government is somehow responsible for this, however, is absolute, unbelievable nonsense.

Oborne and Phillips seem to imply that there was a Minister in Whitehall, who for 13 years was charged with monitoring the daily routines of Britain's families. If Mr and Mrs Smith in Coventry had a row, this was obviously a failing on the part of the Labour Government to properly buttress the married, two parent family. Whenever a father deserted his pregnant partner, this was a clear and unforgivable error that had been perpetrated by Labour party officials. Of course it was nothing at all to do with that particular couple, who for any number of reasons, had separated. The fault had to lie with Labour.

Much is said of the abolition of the married couples' tax allowance. It is argued that by making it more financially viable for single parents to live on their own, Labour, in Phillips' words set out to 'destroy the traditional nuclear family'. What a load of rubbish. Only a person with a warped sense of the realities of life could suggest that a tax break would have any impact on a family's choices. If a father loves a mother, he will stay with her. That is true whether or not he receives favourable treatment in the tax system.

The Government simply cannot influence what goes on in the homes of its citizens. To suggest otherwise represents a Stalinist imposition of rules and regulations totally alien to a liberal democracy. It is a particularly curious angle for those on the right to take, given their hostility towards government when it tries to introduce basic controls like the minimum wage and maternity rights.

Even if, as in the disturbed minds of Oborne and Phillips, the Government had absolute influence over the choices of people in adult relationships, preserving the 'traditional nuclear family' might not always have the desired effect. Huge numbers of successful and prosperous individuals now come from one parent households. It is frankly insulting to those people to suggest that the Government ought to have prevented their parents from separating. Coercing fathers - financially or otherwise - into staying with their partners against their will may not produce the happiest children.

No, the cause of the riots was not the decline of two parent households under Labour, or the deficit reduction programme under the coalition. Nor was it immigration (an odd argument to make in light of the amazing unity shown by different communities across the country), police brutality (I am certain most of those seen looting foot locker did not know the man shot in Tottenham), or our 'celebrity culture' (the rioters only seemed to idolise themselves). When all is said and done it was nothing more than opportunistic crime committed by those who made a rational decision to take that course of action. So please stop the moralising.

There is Nothing 'Inevitable' or 'Understandable' About Rioting

Those of us on the left like to believe that we are on the 'nice' side of politics. Left wingers tend to advocate good things like help for the disadvantaged, fair taxation, and social tolerance. My own view is that this is broadly the best place to be in terms of political positioning. Every now and then, however, those on the left undermine that theory and make me wonder whether they are really standing up for the right things.

The latest example of this is the response to fierce rioting in London - and now, as I write, Birmingham - in the last view days. Most observers were united in unequivocally condemning the rioters, who tore through the streets attacking the police, smashing up property, and looting local businesses. Despite this general consensus, a few on the harder left tried to present the riots as the inevitable consequence of Government economic and social policy.

Former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, for example took the opportunity to attack the coalition's cuts shortly after the Tottenham riots on Saturday:

“The economic stagnation and cuts being imposed by the Tory government inevitably create social division. As when Margaret Thatcher imposed such policies during her recessions this creates the threat of people losing control, acting in completely unacceptable ways that threaten everyone, and culminating in events of the type we saw in Tottenham.'

He was joined by socialist campaigner Peter Tatchell, who tweeted the following:

Well-off communities don’t riot. #Riots occur in deprived areas. Mere coincidence? I don’t think so. Injustice > riots #Tottenham #MetPolice

In these comments, therefore, both Livingstone and Tatchell attempted to imply that the riots had a degree of justification and could have been avoided were it not for the dogmatic policies of the Tory-led government.

Not only is this offensive to any notion of moral responsibility, it is also factually questionable. The people seen looting shops on Saturday night did not seem to be crusaders against the cuts. They are clearly not the same people who flocked to London for the TUC march earlier this year. Rather, they are criminal opportunists who spotted a chance to get something for nothing and took it.

There is not and will never be any justification for the violence seen in the last few days. The victims of this behaviour will not be members of the government (whose leaders were not even bothered enough to return from their holidays), the Conservative party (not many Tory voters in north London), or the evil bankers (still earning their bonuses). Instead, it will be small business owners, individual police officers, and the hard-working majority of residents in these areas. It will be people like the Turkish immigrant interviewed on BBC News, whose van was destroyed in the riots, preventing him from working as a painter and decorator and from supporting his family.

The people seen taking part in riots today do not warrant sympathy for the 'injustice' they have suffered at the hands of the government or the police. They forfeited their right to be heard when they started destroying homes and livelihoods. Until commentators on the left like Livingstone and Tatchell start standing up for hard-working Londoners and condemning looting opportunists, their prospects of winning back the support of the public will be like most of north London - up in smoke.