I’m not upset by Cameron’s comments. He isn’t making policy here, he’s not saying, “Let’s be soft on crime and on the causes of crime”, he’s saying, look, some of the so-called trouble-making yoofs aren’t trouble-making — it’s just a misunderstood feeling of being social outcasts who “aren’t understood”…
At the same time, though, and while I agree (for once) with Polly Toynbee that Cameron’s being canny here, he will upset a large number of potential Tory voters on Council and Housing Association estates by implying that the trouble-makers are not all that bad and should be given a hug.
The trouble is that youths really do think that they’re not understood by politicians. I have spoken to kids on the street and you can see in their faces surprise at being included in the conversation. They get the feeling from their experience of wearing intimidating clothing (that they have to wear to fit in with their peers, let’s not forget) that anyone older than twenty-five (or even eighteen in some cases) “don’t get them”.
Cameron’s not trying to make a profound social-philosophical point here, he’s trying to get in the media and appeal to LibDems, but what he has also achieved is to appeal even more to the dejected youths themselves who, let’s not forget, are likely to be of voting age by the next election.
Cameron, I am sure, will be a typical Tory when it comes to a belief in reducing crime. But if he uses modern methods rather than the regressive attitude of the current government, if he advocates prison over probation while calling for people to respect each other, if he calls for a reduction in the punitive rather than rehabilitative solution to drugs — then he will be onto an even stronger winner than he already appears to be!
July 10th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Lots of great points, well made. I couldn’t agree more that this isn’t meant to be policy it’s meant to be direction. Although I can’t envisage the day when I’d ever agree or admit to agreeing with Polly Toynbee! You’re a braver person than I for that LOL
(Just to let you know, for curteousy, I’ve linked to this article from my blog here: http://www.bewareofthedogma.com/2006/07/nick-robinson-think-for-yourself.html”)
July 10th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Wow I think it’s great that somebody is actually talking about being tough on the causes of crime as well as the other bit.
Its just fascinating that its Cameron of all people that is latching onto it and I can’t fathom out whether its a good or bad thing in this context.
Lets be straight - crime and in particular petty crime is a huge problem for the working classes and its entirely correct that Labour should wrest control of the issue from the Tories who successfully exploited Labour’s softly softly approach in the 1980s. Tackling crime is as much Labour heartland as unemployment, the NHS and fish and chips at Blackpool.
Its also quite correct that Labour focuses disproportionately for a while on punishment of offenders and punishing them early. I like the Blair stance of refusing to apologise to the social workers who claim for instance that young people have a right to justice by saying that ordinary law abiding people have a right to justice too. Its simplistic but sometimes being simplistic is the only way to tackle issues that are hopelessly complicated as otherwise you get ground down in the semantics.
But its right that we also look to long term solutions. This doesn’t mean that we constantly excuse consistent bad behaviour. Nipping anti social behaviour in the bud with heavy punishment so it doesn’t spread into serious offending is in itself one long term solution.
But I worry slightly about the huge number of ASBOs that are issued that ban somebody from a certain activity. This is great for the immediate needs of the community but don’t really work to address the offender’s long term issues and doesn’t meet the future needs of the community.
So its a good thing that Cameron is using his profile and political capital to get ‘Causes of Crime’ back on the agenda. Things like parenting classes and repararation are really important for addressing a potential career criminal’s environmental influences at an early stage.
The trouble is the Tories voted aginst them and slammed them as gimmicks in the press.
That’s why I’m confused…
July 11th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Typical! Tory councillors/MP’s going liberal .. LOL!!
Well I *do* happen to think Mr Cameron is quite a trojan horse, but am I being niavely optimistic?
July 11th, 2006 at 5:23 am
In the 1955 and 1959 General elections a number of Conservative candidates descibed themselves as ‘Liberal and Conservative’ or ‘Conservative and Liberal’. These were separate from the National Liberals who were linked to the Conservative Party.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:44 am
David Cameron was asked to explain these comments at a speech he gave in Birmingham on Friday. the question was: What role should government should play in encouraging people to love each other more:
You can hear his response through this link
http://www.podnosh.com/programmes/hugahoodycameron.mp3
or read about it on www.podnosh.com/blog