Uk politics

The decisions of Crispin Blunt, the prisons’ minister, are hard to fathom. One wonders why-as the Daily Mail reports today — he allowed a man convicted of killing five people to give an unapologetic interview to a magazine. Blunt’s defence is that it wouldn’t have been right for him to stop it. That may be the case but that doesn’t explain his decision to send a press officer to assist with the whole procedure. Rehabilitating prisoners is vital if we are going to tackle crime in this country. But it is hard to see how this kind of thing — or parties in prison — help that noble aim. Rather they are actions that do nothing but upset the families of victims and undermine public confidence in the judicial system.

Today we learnt that David Cameron is looking at the experience of Los Angeles’ recovery from the 1992 riots. The first lesson he should learn is the value of an inquiry, as Ed Miliband suggests. Californian policymakers held an inquiry, and it taught them plenty about the nature of modern poverty, urban unrest — and how to tackle it. Part of the reason that poverty in Britain is so ingrained is because so few politicians look at it in any detail, and even mentioning the word ‘underclass’ solicits squeals of disapproval. We remain aloof. As I argued in the magazine last month, we like harmless sketches about British poverty (Rab C Nesbitt, Little Britain etc.) but think that The Wire represents an American malaise that could never take root in Britain.

This afternoon’s parliamentary debate touched on the sociological issues that may have inspired the recent looting. Naturally, there are plenty of competing views on the subject, but I bring your attention to Harriet Sergeant’s, which she has expressed in the latest issue of the Spectator. Sergeant has conducted extensive investigations into the teenage gangs in London, acquainting herself with gang members and their way of life. Her observations are intriguing, albeit terrifying. An extended version of her magazine article is available online and I urge you to read it. But here is a short extract: ‘The young men I interviewed had very obviously failed to make the transition to manhood and a successful adult life.

Judging by today's YouGov polls, the riots have pushed crime sharply up the national agenda: it now ranks second, behind only the economy. In all, almost half of Brits think crime is one of the top three issues facing the country, more than double the number who said so a fortnight ago. The effect has, unsurprisingly, been strongest in London, where around two-in-three now see crime as a major concern: As for the causes of the riots, the majority blame "criminal behaviour" and "gang culture". Contrary to what Harriet Harman may insinuate, just eight per cent blame the government's cuts, and this is largely the 16 per cent of Labour voters who put the blame at the Coalition's door.

When the first riots hit Brixton, I was 12 years old. My mates and I came from south London council estates and, while we were no angels, we certainly couldn't be described as bad kids. I can't pretend that I had any real grasp on why people were rioting but I knew it was against the same police who would stop and bug us constantly — even though none of us had either the balls or inclination to commit crime. It may sound like a tired cliche but the police didn’t feel like our protectors. They felt like more like an occupying force. And why? There were countless incidents to explain it, but one that sticks in my mind was in 1981 — the same year as the first Brixton riots.