Tough on the causes of hoodies

The leader-writers at The Daily Telegraph sound very unhappy with David Cameron's 'hoodie' speech (due to be given later today at the Centre for Social Justice):

"How much more can we take? Barely a week goes by without David Cameron distancing himself from some elemental Tory belief. He is against grammar schools and tax cuts and big business; in favour of the state sector and immigration. Now he says that young toughs need understanding, not condemnation."

The rest of The Telegraph leader is more of a harrumph than an argument and The Daily Mail is rightly more positive and constructive.  The Mail believes that the Tory leader is "right to say these young people [hoodies] are suffering from neglect and the absence of love" and that society must tackle the causes of anti-social behaviour that put young people on, what Oliver Letwin once called, the conveyor belt to crime.  What the Mail urges, however, is that the Tories look at the main driver of anti-social behaviour - family breakdown:

"Britain has Europe's worst rate of family breakdown, the highest number of teenage pregnancies, the highest incidence of fatherless children and, as a result, the highest rate of child poverty.  But not a mention of this appears in the advance copy of Mr Cameron's speech today."

I cannot verify what The Mail says about the advance copy of Mr Cameron's speech - unlike the Republican Party the Tory leader's office has never provided any advance briefing to bloggers  - but Iain Duncan Smith was emphatically pro-family on this morning's Today programme. He made it clear that family breakdown's impact on the poorest communities will be a leading theme of today's CSJ conference - 'Thugs: beyond redemption?'

It will be a big test of Mr Cameron's seriousness about the causes of crime if his recent all-things-to-all-people family speech evolves towards a serious commitment to promote fatherhood, support the aspiration to marriage and provide fairness for stay-at-home parents. Mr Cameron has set up a policy review process and IDS has been charged with making recommendations on family policy.  Time will tell whether those recommendations are (a) good enough and (b) whether or not they'll be adopted by the Cameron leadership.

Later today - in a move likely to reassure the more traditional Tories - David Cameron will underline his commitment to police reform. The public wants "the police to be crime fighters, not form writers," he will say.  "They want the police to be a force as well as a service."

If Mr Cameron can get serious about being 'tough on the causes of crime' he is already demonstrating a clear commitment to be 'tough on crime'.  In addition to his police reform agenda - which is in the safe hands of Nick Herbert MP - he has also made clear promises to develop Michael Howard's successful 'prisons works' policy.

5.30pm update: FULL TEXT OF DAVID CAMERON'S SPEECH

Comments

[Sally Roberts]

I think there has been a good deal of over-reaction on what I think was a genuine attempt by DC to reach out to young people. On first hearing about the speech, my reaction was "what nonsense" - but on reflection I can see the point that was being made. I suspect most kids wear hoodies because all their mates do - it's fashion pure and simple - but I am certainly under no illusions that there are many who have different motives.
I have seen reports in the media that over the summer holidays children are going to be removed by the police if they gather in groups after 9 pm in certain areas. If this is true then Labour is certainly not proving itself to be a friend of young people - perhaps there is a gap there which the Conservatives can fill?

[esbonio]

Ted

Time and again Cameron seems to seek publicity and when he does so it appears to be done in a in a way deliberately calculated to position himself as far away from what I consider to be the views of traditional orthodox conservative voters. If you are suggesting this is not the case and that he is in this instance a victim of Labour counter spin, I suggest he dispenses with the spin and sticks to the substance.

I do not agree with your contention that social conditions are necessarily responsible for the rise in crime and yobishness. When the Tories were in power Labour blamed crime on the economy. That did not wash then nor does it wash now given the relatively benign economic situation we have had since the mid 90s. Of course I accept there is a social component in all this and yes I do believe in second chances. But no amount of fluffiness or taxpayers money will be sufficient to reverse the damage wrought by decades of cultural revolution which has resulted in a situation where teenage yobs feel free to threaten my octgenarian WW2 veteran father in broad daylight. I suspect I know what they need and understanding is not at the top of my list. We have been trying the fluffy approach since the 60s and it did not work.

[James Maskell]

The internet connection seems to be rather reluctant for me to post here...I shall keep it short.

I dont like this. It suggests that criminals should have an excuse because of their backgrounds. The reaction from a Thanet based website shows this policy will be rather unpopular and that slogan "Hug a Hoodie" will stick like sleaze to a Government Minister.

Camerons messed up again. He must do better. Hes alienating his core support, who would normally come out and vote Tory because they are conservative. I dont think the Conservatives are centre right anymore. I think they are plain centre, if not centre left. I really do and its depressing...

[arthur]

Just watched Cameron do his Hoodie thing

It could be a Caine Mutiny scenario here.
Might be an idea to get Lieut.Cmdr. Davis out of his bunk, the Captain's gone mad!!
Better get him of the bridge, before the ship hits the rocks.

[Mark]

Having spent today at the conference and heard the cases made by experts, healthcare professionals, reformed offenders and the voluntary sector I am very depressed by some of the reaction to this CSJ event and David Cameron’s comments.

We can all understand that if prison worked, we’d be pulling them down. Instead we have record numbers in prison and a re-offending rate of up to 80%. It is estimated that the cost of keeping a 19 year old in prison is £170,000 per annum. I believe there are compassionate reasons for not giving up on “yobs” but, those aside, it is a fool with my money who suggests that we should carry on with a single solution that is clearly failing. We have to take onboard the experience and advice of people who work day-in day-out to solve the problems that pervert an innocent child to a perpetual criminal.

[changetowin]

Well said, Mark. For those of us who weren't lucky enough to have been there today, I urge you to watch the speech on the BBC website. It is the very opposite of headline grabbing - it is all about acting for the long-term and not taking easy solutions.

[TomTom]

We can all understand that if prison worked, we’d be pulling them down.

That's a peculiar logic giving great insight into your mindset.

Pursuing the analogy we can stop treating cancer in the NHS because we have so many dying of cancer, treatment is therefore futile.

Schools should be abolished judging by the increasing ignorance of British society

We don't need to waste money on AIDS treatment because infection rates are increasing.

No point in bothering about alcoholism because it is increasing.

No reason not to deregulate weapons ownership because murder rates are increasing as is gun crime.

[Chris]

*smashes head into brick wall repeatedly*

What I just love about this whole situation is the fact that even Tories are swallowing Labour spin here. The newspapers are merely printing "Hug a Hoodie" because it makes a catchy title, and it grabs attention as being something people wouldn't ever consider doing. I wouldn't be suprised if some people decided they were against this policy as soon as they head "Hug a Hoodie", as opposed to actually reading more about what it entails.

As CCHQ spy said earlier on this is a brilliant example of the "AND principle", Cameron has announced £15 Billion of New Prisons AND greater voluntary sector work with troubled youths.

[Jonathan Mackie]

But that's the point Chris, the AND principle has been subdued by the spin. Elsewhere Ted quotes Nick Robinson (former YC)of the BBC saying the Hug a Hoodie imagery is Labour spin. Absolute rubbish. Every paper, every media outlet adopted the same position, even those media who are favourable towards us. This is CCHQ spin gone badly wrong.

The understanding for young alienated youth should have been a secondary message in the speech, but because of the repositioning project it is given centre stage. All this has achieved is not the more probing "tough on the causes of crime" message sought but rather just ridicule.

[Chris]

Aye, it is most likely bad spin on our part, but i don't feel that means that Tory posters on this site should assume the bad spin is actually whats being proposed. If Blair says the sky is pink and all the newspapers print it, is it true?

Maybe in future the AND principle needs to be applied in one speech, so that we announce the hard right wing stance and the nice fluffy one side by side. We get less headlines that way, but at least they would all be positive!

[betty]

A lot of dreadful youth crime might cease if kitchen knives had rounded ends - it used to be the case. Not easy to stab if all knives had blunted ends.

Further it would help if alcohol was NOT sold in super markets. Alcohol in pubs and wine shops is much less likely to get into the hands of the wrong people.

[Mark]

That's a peculiar logic giving great insight into your mindset.

TomTom (aka Rick, for surely it is you in a slinky disguise), when I wrote that “if prison worked, we’d be pulling them down” I was repeating what was said yesterday by Trevor Philpott OBE (Director, Life Change UK formerly C-FAR) and closely paraphrasing Sir David Ramsbotham (Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons 1995-2001). I would rather be of their mindset than yours (note no apostrophe).

Your list doesn’t pursue the analogy at all. Everything in your list learns from its results in the search of more effective strategies. By contrast, my whole point was that for prisons we’re sticking with a system that delivers an 80% re-offending rate when it has been demonstrated that other approaches can achieve 40%.

[Chris]

Betty, as nice a world as it might be but "The Rounded End Knife Act of 2009" might just be interpreted as being a tad nanny-state-ish.

As for not selling alcohol in a supermarket, I don't see how this would help in any way at all. Most businesses subscribe to the idea of if you look under 21 then you are asked for an ID. There are serious fines for selling to a minor (And some of these are aimed directly at the person who sold the alcohol, meaning the little old lady on £6 an hour might end up saddled with a nasty fine) so sales to minors have dropped.

[Mark]

“Hug a hoodie” shows that new Labour still doesn’t understand why it is wrong to demonise a large chunk of our community for something so irrelevant as what they wear.

[Chris McvLaughlin]

AND?

Those of us with more than a basic passing knowledge of Spin know there is never an AND in media communication. The soundbite and print quote must to straight to the point.

The And is the edit point of the package.

I knew that when I launched Carlton TV in the 1990's and nothing has changed since...

[Anony-rodent]

Many of us simply do not have the time to locate the original speech. I am an ordinary person, with a 'job', not a 'career'. I am not interested in the intellectual debates of the chattering classes from the safety of their London wine bars. I understand that you have to deal with causes of crime: but that will take a whole generation, if not two. What I want to hear is how Mr Cameron proposes to deal with the effects of the breakdown of society. My sentiments are as follows.

(As posted on

http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/2006/07/hoodies-policy-adam-smith-institute.html )

What is this man [Cameron] on? When will he have the courage to address the root of the problem? Selfish, amoral behaviour leading to the complete breakdown of the family.

Of course youngsters need love - the love of two adult parents (1 male, 1 female, preferably the birth parents) who are committed to making their relationship work, and who have exercised sufficient discipline throughout the child's life so that they don't end up hanging about on street corners with their mates, high on drugs or lighter fuel, and knifing passers-by for the fun of it.

It is precisely because of the self-centred, amoral behaviour of at least two generations of parents that we are in this sorry mess. I recall what I believe to be a statement by Winston Churchill (though I cannot trace it):

"Those who will not be motivated by love must be constrained by fear."

It is precisely the absence of any fear of being caught, let alone of any retribution, that has contributed to the "gangs of feral youths" that make ordinary peoples' lives so unbearable. Do we have to wait until outraged residents start lynching the low life before the political class wake up and smell the coffee?

[Mark]

Anony-rodent, you criticise David Cameron for what he didn’t say, yet you admit that you don’t know what he said!

To set you straight, David Cameron was very clear about the need for strong enforcement of clear boundaries to acceptable behaviour. In fact, so much so that I was worried about the potential reaction of the largely liberal audience and panel (such as Camila Batmanghelidjh, Dr Felicty De Zulueta, Professor Hilton Davies and Femi Oyeniran).

You’ll also be pleased to hear that he did talk about the role of the family (although I can’t see any way that policy can cause families to work).

[Anony-rodent]

Mark July 11 at 12:29.

Thank you for your response. I have printed off the speech to read, will do some digging on the CSJ, and try to give more measured response later.

Anony-rodent

[Anony-rodent]

Mark July 11 at 12:29.

Thank you for your response. I have printed off the speech to read, will do some digging on the CSJ, and try to give more measured response later.

Anony-rodent

[Mark]

I think the family comments came up in the Q&A so aren't in the transcript. They were very similar to the comments he made in his previous speech to the CSJ.

[Jonathan Mackie]

But Mark, the positive comments that we all welcome, which try to address some of the issues that lead to the alienation of youths and the consequent wearing of hoodies, are all lost in the spin of the speech.

Incidently I was walking through Birkenhead today and saw a group of young lads with pit bulls looking very menacing and encouraging the dogs to fight each other. I'm no dog lover but it was seriously intimidating. When are the police going to enforce the Dangerous Dogs Act? Or should I have gone over and asked them if it was a lack of love in the parental home that was making those lads act like that?

[Anony-rodent]

Mark July 11 at 12:29.

I am writing to apologise for my intemperate remarks based on very limited information.

To my shame I went googling with the preconception that the "Centre for Social Justice" was some left-of-centre advocacy group staffed by PC humanists to a person (of unspecified gender).

Imagine my surprise and embarrassment to find after some searching on www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk that 3 of the 4 trustees were IDS, Oliver Letwin and David Willets! (The website is very reticent about saying exactly who the are or what they stand for.)

Having read Mr Cameron's speech in the light of his intended audience (an organization that supports voluntary organisations, many of which have explicitly Christian foundations), I can now see why he said what he did.

Unfortunately, such long-term unsung work doesn't make for good soundbytes.

[Caroline Best]

As Jonatahn Mackie points out above, the underlying (reasonable) message(s) in the speech have been lost in the dreadful spin/PR job done by CCHQ (and exploited perfectly by the Labour spin machine).

Cameron's one real job was in PR so he should know how these things work.

As the FT points out today, Labour's campaign team must be looking forward to having Cameron followed by a load of Labour workers in hoodies, with "I need a hug" printed on them. It will take Cameron a long time to live this one down.

[Chris McLaughlin]

There is no reason why David Cameron should be particularly adept at spin.He's not experinced in tabloid media relations.The central function of the Head of PR at Carlton plc was to say "no comment", "we do not comment on" or " We neither confirm, nor deny". Financial in-house PR is very different to what I was doing at Carlton TV.

We dealt with the day to day joys of Margie Clarkes " Good Sex Guide" and September Films, "Hollywood Women"; dreadful, cheap drama and tabloid trash pretending to be social comment like " Special Babies " - immensely fat people having babies; Blues and Twos"- early police video action and "London Tonight" the grim early evening news programme that worked on the news desk addage that " If it bleeds, it leads...".

Thats real PR training for modern Britain, not Plc "No Comment".

[Trevor Philpott]

I am pleased that the debate surrounding young people and crime is at long last engaging a wider section of society. Equally, I have been dismayed by the lack of awareness and understanding of such issues. Considerable negative and emotional talk is being generated regarding what is increasingly one of the most serious social issues facing our country.

As I have already been quoted on this site as one of the 10 July CSJ conference speakers, I thought I would take the opportunity to point readers to our web site - www.lifechangeuk.com and a copy of my presentation which can be found on our media page. Regrettably, the issues surrounding youth crime and anti-social behaviour are complex. I therefore respectfully request that those who are currently set on refusing to listen to what DC and IDS are attempting to do, please pause for a moment and reflect. The botom line is simple - if we keep doing the same things, we must expect to see the same outcomes. If we want to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour, we must start to do things differently.

[Martin]

Wearing a hoodie is fine!