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.

Standing Up for Multiculturalism

Last week a number of Lithuanian men died after an accident on an industrial estate in Lincolnshire. The men died while trying to brew 'super-strength' vodka, which they intended to supply to shops serving the Eastern European community. The alcohol is illegal in the United Kingdom.

This incident is a stark example of the problems surrounding integration that have become common with certain immigrant groups. Naturally, when you move to a foreign country, you tend to group yourself around other people who speak your language, share your culture, and experience the same difficulties in seeking to live abroad. The issue with this is that it, in the short term at least, prevents you from fully embracing new values, culture, and language.

It is in this context that tabloid headlines and populist politicians have called for an end to 'multiculturalism'. By promoting difference, it is argued, you create division. Division leads to conflict and hostility, which, at its most extreme, results in terrorism and violence. David Cameron articulated this argument in a speech in Munich earlier in the year where he declared that multiculturalism had failed.

A cursory glance of right-wing tabloids reveals a wider anti-immigrant fixation. The Daily Express routinely refers to 'waves' of immigrants and highlights crimes committed by foreign nationals. If you were to purchase the Express or the Daily Mail, it is almost certain that you would discover multiple reports on the evils of immigration in the first 10 pages.

This critique of immigration is not confined to the right, however. Very recently, Lord Glasman, the man behind the 'Blue Labour' movement and a key advisor to Ed Miliband, argued that there should be an immediate freeze on all non-EU immigration and that the UK should renegotiate the rules on free movement of labour with our EU partners. Glasman's whole strategy is based on tapping into working class disenchantment with low wages and fierce competition from foreign workers. This disenchantment has manifested itself in strong support for the BNP in working class areas.

So there appears to be a degree of consensus that immigration creates problems for society. The main political parties are now attempting to out flank each other in terms of being tough on further immigration. After Labour enacted a restrictive points regime which cut immigrant numbers significantly, the coalition government decided that this was not enough and put in place a firm quota on the numbers of people who can come and live in the UK. As a result, we now face absurd situations where the world's most talented scientists are unable to gain entry to the country as the quota has already been filled.

At this point it is probably worth reminding ourselves why so many people wish to come to the UK. After all, it's wet (I'm writing this listening to rain pounding my window in mid-July), cold, grey, expensive, with terrible food and many national flaws.

The reason these poor deluded people wish to abandon their home countries, pack up their lives and move to Britain is because of the promise it offers. The UK is seen as a beacon of tolerance, fairness, order and tradition, opportunity, and stability. There are plenty of nations that lack these attributes. If a person from one of those nations wishes to make their home here, is that such an ignoble ambition? Should the thought of that repulse us? Or should we take it as a source of national pride and seek to encourage, rather than discourage and stigmatise, this person?

And should we expect them to start living like 'British' people from the moment the plane hits the tarmac? Are we to require all newcomers to start binge drinking, complaining, cooking rubbish food, and instigating football riots from day one? Or is it more reasonable to allow them to live their own lives within our laws and regulations?

I'm not advocating total, uncontrolled immigration. What I am arguing for is a change in the way we look at individual immigrants, be they asylum seekers or economic migrants. Instead of rejecting new arrivals as sponging, insular, parasites, how about we view them as human beings trying to do what they can? If this means persisting with multiculturalism then so be it. In the long term, this will do far more for reducing division and hostility than the current consensus apparent on all ends of the political spectrum.

Consuming Students

I am coming to the end of my studies at BPP Law School. BPP is a private 'University College' that prides itself on providing good quality, practical education to its students. My campus is a glossy, modern building in the centre of London where tuition is given through interactive seminars, large group sessions, and electronic 'e-learning'. In return, it demands the paltry sum of £15,000.

Grateful though I am for this first-class teaching, it saddens me to think that BPP will come to represent the future of higher education provision. If Universities Minister David 'Two Brains' Willetts has his way, the coalition government will create a market in further education with students acting as consumers and businesses supplying degrees. Willetts intends to make it easier for private colleges such as BPP to compete with publicly funded institutions. This is part of a package of whole scale reform in this area, which has seen tuition fees trebled at public universities and more emphasis being placed on the publishing of graduate recruitment statistics.

At first glance, any attempt to improve the standards of higher education should be welcomed. In my last post I lamented the awful graduate employment prospects facing those currently leaving university. Therefore, the government is surely right to prioritise careers and to focus on students getting better value for money.

There is something fundamentally troubling, however, about students being turned into consumers. At BPP there is a strange atmosphere, which is totally different from the atmosphere I experienced at my undergraduate public university. It does not feel like a centre of academic discovery. That's not to say the standards are low; the tuition is of high quality and the assessment process is rigorous to say the least. Rather, it feels like a place where people pass through as a means to an end, not a place that it is enjoyable to be for the sole purpose of learning.

In order to understand why this is problematic it is necessary to consider the purpose of higher education. Is it to produce top graduates? Or is there more to it than that?

Certainly, one of the key aims of a university education is to gain a good qualification that will lead to a prosperous career. That is why most young people make the decision to spend money and head to university. In the global economy it is nothing short of essential for the UK to produce the best graduates in order to support our industries. So the government is right to be fixated with driving up standards and improving graduate recruitment.

This is surely not enough by itself, however. One of the core aspects of a university education must be to stimulate intellectual curiosity. To foster thinking for no reason other than to think. To learn more about one's opinions. My fondest memories of undergraduate life include having discussions with my tutors about points of law for reasons of interest alone, not to pass an exam or succeed in a job interview.

Willetts seems to forget this with his desire to commoditize higher education. 'Two Brains' has overlooked the need to learn how to use one's brain. His plan to allow more private universities to run degree courses is a recipe for taking the soul and meaning out of academic endeavour. In my last post I also mentioned the New College of the Humanities, a private university which will offer the best possible teaching in exchange for fees of £18,000 a year, making BPP look cheap. No doubt the graduates of the New College will be in an envious position in the labour market. What of their university experience though? Will there be genuine intellectual curiosity when the students are mere consumers? Or will it be, as at BPP, that the majority of students attend because they see it as a means to an end, having paid so much money?

Maybe the view I have expressed is a romantic vision of further study. It may be possible that the notion of spending three years debating and thinking for no vocational gain is simply outdated in the modern economy. If this is right though I think it is a sad reflection on our society. As with most things, the government seems to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

No Country for Young Men

Perhaps Neil Kinnock's greatest ever moment was his 1983 'I warn you' speech where he desparately tried to prevent the British public from re-electing Margaret Thatcher. Kinnock warned people not to be ill, ordinary, unemployed or anything else that could put them at risk in Thatcher's Britain. While the speech has now been forgotten and consigned to the history books, one remark has never been more appropriate: 'I warn you not to be young'.

There is no doubt that young people face the greatest challenges under this Conservative government. Across the board, changes are being made that will make it harder than ever for young people to study, get jobs, find housing or become valued members of society. This is nothing short of tragic with far-reaching implications for the future of this country.

Let's take employment. In February it was reported that youth unemployment had surged to 20.5%. 1 in 5 people between 16 and 24 who are looking for work are unable to find any. The economic crisis has hit younger people worse than any other group. Employers are reluctant to take on young employees as they are unwilling to spend the time and effort training them. Younger employees are by definition inexperienced and in need of development.

Even graduates cannot find jobs. In my own sector, law, it is becoming increasingly difficult for younger applicants to compete with older cross-qualifying professionals. The Crown Prosectuion Service, for example, has suspended recruitment of legal trainees. Instead, those approaching retirment in the CPS are being forced to work two or three jobs to make up for the shortfall.

Graduate employment in general is around the 20% mark. One of the key triggers of the Arab Spring was graduates angry at being able to find jobs, even blue collar jobs, and taking out their anger on the repressive regimes of North Africa and the Middle East. This was expressed most powerfully in the story of Mohammad Bouazizi, a Tunisian graduate, who set himself on fire in protest after he was prevented from selling fruit and vegetables on a market stall. Tunisia is of course a far cry from the UK. It is a stark example, however, of the extreme consequences of graduate joblessness.

Younger people are not just facing a raw deal in the labour market. The reforms pushed through by this government will make it harder for ordinary young people to go to university. Tuition fees have now been trebled to £9,000 a year at almost all universities. It was reported a few weeks ago that a new college is being created in London with fees of £18,000 a year. Most observers predict that this model of higher education will become the norm in the next few years. The effect of this will be huge, irreparable damage to social mobility. There is simply no way that young people from modest social backgrounds will be able to access this kind of education. So what are they to do instead? Get a job? Fat chance.

Everywhere you look younger people are being placed at a disadvantage in society. In addition to trebling tuition fees, this government have abolished the educational maintenance allowance, providing a lifeline to students from less affluent homes. It has scrapped the future jobs fund, which would have created up to 200,000 jobs for young people. It has axed building schools for the future and consigned places of education to ruin and disrepair. Its failure to deal with the rising cost of living has disproportionately affected younger members of society. Its failure to put measures in place to guarantee affordable housing has left younger people unable to take their first steps on the property ladder.

Why is all this bad? It risks creating a 'lost generation' of people who have underdeveloped CVs. Research shows that a prolonged period of unemployment earlier in life can be fundamentally damaging for a person's employment prospects as they get older. This is bad for the individual, the economy, and society as a whole. In addition, having fewer people go to university is problematic in terms of the skills set of the workforce and the general need to create an educated citizenry. More than this though, it is a betrayal by an older generation who benefited from free higher education and an easy pathway into top jobs.

Until the political class take note of the vast challenges facing young people in Cameron's Britain, this state of affairs is unlikely to change. While young people are the losers now, the real loser will be society in the long-term.

The Burglar's Gamble

Last week the Sentencing Council published a new consultation on the sentencing regime applicable to offences of burglary. The consultation invited responses on the Council's proposals to increase sentences depending on the consequences of the burglary, particularly the actual harm inflicted on the victim. Sir Brian Leveson, Chairman of the Council, summed up the new approach by stating that it would ensure 'that the impact on victims is at the centre of considerations about what sentence should be passed on a burglar.'

The Council's latest intervention represents a continuation in thinking in criminal justice policy apparent over the last 10 years with victims placed at the forefront of political rhetoric. Successive Home Secretaries have hit the airwaves promising to make victims the most important players in the criminal justice system. Much of the reform has been largely symbolic, such as the unenforceable Victims Charter, and victims have gained few new rights despite the political posturing. This suggested change, however, may do more to improve the standing of victims when it comes to the consequences of offending.

Is this really right though? For those of us who would like to see tougher sentences across the board, any change that increases the punishment for people who commit burglary is to be welcomed. However, there are wider considerations that make this a problematic development in the theory of sentencing.

Traditionally, sentencing has concentrated on the culpability of offenders, rather than the actual harm caused. This is why attempted murder is treated largely the same as murder itself. Society recognises that failing to commit an offence - whether by luck or bad judgment - does not extinguish the offender's culpability. That person is as morally responsible as if he had succeeded in committing the crime.

Applying these principles, the sentence for a burglar should be the same whether or not his victims are upstairs asleep, downstairs watching TV, or out of the house. The burglar's act and mental state are the same in each case. The presence or absence of any victim is a matter of simple luck. Under the Council's new proposals, however, a burglar who frightens victims inside a house will receive a markedly longer sentence than a burglar who has the happy fortune of finding his house unoccupied.

This reflects a general trend towards compensating victims for harm caused. I once witnessed a case where a drunk driver drove from Cambridge to Huntingdon as high as a kite, swerving around moving vehicles, riding the kerb, and driving over roundabouts. Amazingly, his tripped out journey resulted in no casualties or damage. As a result he was given a suspended sentence. Just imagine the sentence he would have received had he hit a child. What would be the principled difference? His culpability would be the same in both cases and sentencing ought to recognise this.

While I am always satisfied, therefore, to hear about offenders being dealt with more severely, I have a profound objection to the current obsession with consequence rather than culpability. I see no reason why a burglar who finds his victim in the house should face different treatment to the burglar who guesses right and discovers an empty house. Both are serious acts warranting significant punishment. To punish one but not the other is a bizarre social choice.

Opening Up a Can of Worms

The news that Osama Bin Laden has been killed by US Special Forces in a fire fight in a Pakistani town will be greeted by celebrations across the Western world. Already reports are emerging of Americans donning 'we got him' T-shirts and waving the stars and stripes. I must confess that I'm not in such a celebratory mood for the following reasons.

Firstly, if the West is to prevail in the war against terror, it is essential that it retains some form of moral legitimacy. The sight of Americans and Europeans dancing around the camp fire after the murder of a Muslim in a Muslim country is not likely to go down too well with those already contemplating embracing radical Islam. Wouldn't it be better if we demonstrated quiet dignity in moments like these? Western moral standing, already weakened by Iraq, cannot afford to suffer such damage.

Secondly, there is a very real chance of revenge attacks. Many people have been questioning for years the extent to which Bin Laden really controls Al-Qaeda. According to some observers, his death is unlikely to have much of a disruptive influence on the planning of Al-Qaeda in Asia and the West. The closed cell nature of Al-Qaeda's operations, where only a few operatives know the nature of what they are working on, means that the loss of one person is not likely to be terminal. What it will do, however, is lead to massive calls for revenge attacks in Islamist circles.

Thirdly, the circumstances of Bin Laden's death raise important questions about Pakistan's role in the war on terror. Bin Laden was killed in a town not far from Islamabad, which included an elite military training centre of the Pakistani military. This is a far cry from the remote border caves in which he has supposedly been hiding for years. How the Pakistani intelligence and armed forces can not have known about this is a matter for speculation. How long has Bin Laden been in Pakistan? These questions will be repeated by those already critical of Pakistan's reluctance to fully engage with radical elements in its population.

I'm not so sure that making Osama Bin Laden a martyr was really the best tactical approach to adopt in the war on terror. Regardless of its strategic implications, it makes me upset to see that people in the West cannot rise above celebrating the murder of a human being in moments like these, even that of a human being as evil and despicable as Bin Laden. Despite not being a Christian myself, I think those who profess to follow that religion would do well to remember this Proverb: 'Do not rejoice when your enemy falls. And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles.'

Why I'm Saying No to AV

Blink and you will have missed it. It's almost gone unnoticed amidst the unexpected April sunshine but in just a few weeks we will have the opportunity to change our voting system. As someone who is on the left of politics, sometimes I feel compelled to support 'change' and be 'progressive'. Therefore, I was tempted to throw my support behind the Yes2AV campaign in the name of electoral reform and solidarity with nice people like Charles Kennedy and Caroline Lucas. On closer examination, however, I can't help but feel that the NO2AV folks have the stronger arguments, even though it means agreeing with nasty people like Michael Howard and Matthew Elliott.

Here are the main reasons I'm against the change:

1. AV is harder to understand than FPTP - while clever people like Mr Kennedy and Miss Lucas are clearly able to comprehend the nuances of AV, a lot of people in this country will not. For me, this is the stand out argument against change. Many people find politics boring and incomprehensible as it is. I reckon that a whole lot more will share this opinion if they have to sit down with a calculator to work out why the person who won the most votes in their constituency was not returned as their MP. Those who are discontented with politics are likely to be extremely turned off by a voting system that allows second and third placed candidates to win. This is not a good thing for civic engagement.

2. AV will weaken democratic accountability - my main argument here is that AV will lead to more hung parliaments and hung parliaments are bad for democracy. I'll be honest, this Lib-Con rose garden love-in has put me right off coalitions for life. Putting aside their political views, however, one can see how the mere fact of coalition has weakened trust in politics. During the tuition fee fiasco, it was all too easy for Clegg & Co to retreat to their standard defence of 'we couldn't help it, we're only in coalition' to justify trebling tuition fees after campaigning vociferously to abolish fees outright. I have written before about how stunts like this turn people away from politics. Allowing more hung parliaments will make people really question what is the point of voting when the party they vote for are liable to cave into their coalition partners and renege on their manifesto commitments.

3. AV will elect more fascist MPs - there is a running debate at the moment between the two campaigns about whether the BNP will stand to benefit from AV. Logic dictates that as AV is more favourable to smaller parties (which is why the Lib Dems, the Greens, the nationalists, and UKIP are all in favour), a small party like the BNP will have a greater chance of winning a seat. In particular, they are highly likely to take second and third preference votes from Labour in deprived areas. Whether or not AV does benefit the BNP and other extremist parties remains to be seen. What I do know, however, is that FPTP is no friend of fascists, with the BNP getting nowhere near winning any seat in UK general elections. When it comes to European elections, which are held under proportional representation, however, Nick Griffin and another one of his cronies were elected to represent our nation.

4. It gives the Liberal Democrats too much power - OK, I'll admit that this objection is partly based on my utter repulsion to the Lib Dems. Sorry. But there is a serious point here: if AV were used, there is a very real chance that the leader of this party would wield tremendous influence in deciding which government is formed after a general election. The Lib Dems have too few seats to be in a position where they could govern in their own right. They have just enough seats, though, to hold the balance when Labour and the Conservatives are tied. The more seats they gain, the more frequent compromises like last summer are likely to become. I'm not sure it's healthy to place such a large amount of political power in the hands of one man. Especially where that man is a little weasel like Nick Clegg.

So I urge my friends on the left to resist the temptation to play in the sunshine with Ed Miliband and Simon Hughes and invite them to join the real voices of fairness, William Hague and Norman Tebbit. Strange as it may seem, the only way of securing civic engagement, moderation and accountability is to vote no to AV. If not, Nick Clegg can look forward to a glorious future as the perpetual king maker of British politics.