Peter Franklin: Is our society really broken?

Is our society broken, as David Cameron says it is?  The Independent thinks not, fretting only that “repression and authoritarianism will further demonise disaffected young people and drive them away from a life of purpose.”

Cleverly, but misleadingly, the leader writer compares the deaths of Rhys Jones, last week, and James Bulger, in 1993, alongside the statements made by the Opposition in the wake of each murder. Seizing on parallels between what Tony Blair said then, and what David Cameron is saying now, it concludes that the “anti-social behaviour of a minority is a general problem that has always been with us.” To be fair, there is an acknowledgement that “guns, and indeed knifes, are a problem that may be worse now than 14 years ago”, however, this trifling detail is not allowed to distract the Indie from its argument.

Tempted as I am to administer a thorough fisking (particularly to the notion that our young people are being menaced by “repression and authoritarianism”), I think it’s worth concentrating on what we actually mean by a broken society.

According to a leader in the Times, our society is not broken, but “fractured” – the point being that gang culture is only taking hold in certain enclaves, not in every community.

However, this is a distinction without a difference – after all, David Cameron described our society as broken, not shattered. To use a medical analogy, a bone need not be multiply fractured to count as broken – a single fracture, if sufficiently severe, is enough to render a limb useless.

The pertinent question, therefore, is whether our society is self-supporting. Well, it hasn’t collapsed yet – therefore allowing the liberal left to claim that it isn’t broken. However, as with a broken leg, collapse can be avoided by means of external support. In the case of society, the crutch in question is welfare – or, to put in another way, other people’s money. But just imagine what would happen to our society if this support were to disappear. I don’t think collapse would be too strong a word for what would happen. Of course, the majority would be able to survive on their own resources. Furthermore they’d be able to support elderly and other dependent friends and relatives, if at a cost. But for a substantial minority the result would be calamitous – not just for the sick and disabled, but for millions of able-bodied adults and their children.

While one can usefully describe a broken society in terms of a thousand different indicators, the bottom line is survival – and our society is one where millions of families live in places and in ways that would not survive without a vast transfer of resources from other families living other lives in other places. This is a relatively recent development. Go back a hundred years, even fifty, and you would not find anything remotely similar. With a fraction of the resources available to us today, the communities of the past were self-sustaining even if that meant back-breaking work and harsh social strictures.

That is not to say I wish to return to those days. On the contrary, the fact that no one need fall into absolute poverty as a result of misfortune is something we should be thankful for. But we do need ask ourselves why it is such blessed assurance has deteriorated into a state of permanent dependence for so many people. Or, rather, we need to ask ourselves why this fundamental fact about our society – its most important and distinctive feature – does not dominate the political debate.

Comments

[Mountjoy]

The Independent and The Times are absolutely wrong. It is patently obvious that society is broken. It is exactly the lily-livered approach to the thugs and murderers on the streets (as advocated by the Independent) - a gutless approach to law and order - that has led to this broken society.

Tragically relevant to the recent murder of 11-year-old Rhys Jones, the social breakdown that we are witnessing has very much to do with worklessness - and benefit dependency - that is blighting cities such as Liverpool, Birmingham and London (more on The Wilted Rose on this subject).

So the 'repairing' our broken society should involve not just more police on the beat, but sorting out the tax/benefits system and improving "educational outcomes" (i.e. giving kids a chance of social mobility).

[Ash Faulkner]

James Bulger was a horrific one off. Rhys Jones is by no means the only child, let alone the only person, to be the victim of gun/knife crime in recent times.

The liberal left journalists of the Independent and the BBC are so cosmopolitan and thus so detached from real life or community that they think this isn't a problem. They are completely wrong. It is everywhere.

In any case, the Independent's argument is completely ridiculous. James Bulger happened in 1993...has the Independent possibly considered the idea that society was breaking then? The truth is society has been breaking since the 1960s, because of the New Left's intrusion of the cultural sphere.

As for welfare, I very much agree. I think we should follow Wisconsin-style workfare reforms. One idea they had over there was 'Learn Fare', the idea that any parent receiving child benefit must ensure their child goes to school, and if they're off for a day, lose the percentage for that day; if two days, lose two days worth, etc. It's a multi-pronged attack because the New Left infected multiple parts of culture, but we can and must win it back. I think the non-liberal left public will be right behind us.

[Tony Makara]

Ash, you are right that the social situation began to change dramatically after around 1963. However there has been a large-scale increase in social breakdown since Labour took office ten years ago. Major causes being Labour's anti-family agenda, lack of discipline in school, lack of policing and a media that sees being a junkie or being in a gang as being part of 'Cool Britannia' All these factors and more are down to Labour.

[TomTom]

gang culture is only taking hold in certain enclaves, not in every community.

It is endemic in many neighbourhood schools which is why pupils are trapped into the postcode they were born in. Without selective education to create 'horses for courses' the whole neighbourhood sinks into the swamp.

Over 50% Council House tenants are surviving on Housing Benefit at a cost 0f £14 bn more than twice the entire spending on unemployment pay. So Council House rents were raised and the taxpayer ends up subsidising them meanwhile poor working families as owner-occupiers are shafted or re-possessed while their Council Tax bills increase.

Wisconsin has a population of 5 million in an area larger than England - what is possible with Scandinavian levels of population is frankly impossible in an urbanised and centralised state like England.

Without having high degrees of local autonomy and shrinking back Central Government to a Confederation role nothing is possible. The 1980s were a period of massive centralisation - probably the greatest concentration of power at the centre since 1945 and there is simply no structure left for local autonomy.

The RDAs are being expanded to control yet more local authority functions. It is clear that this country is becoming so centrally-controlled that only a dictatorship can instill sufficient fear into the population to impose order and direction.

Democracy works on bluff by making people look after their own decisions. The centralisation of this country has infantilised the population

When Hitler's centralising mania and Gau and Super-Gau had been dismantled Germany was led by a 76-year old former Mayor of Cologne - Konrad Adenauer. He was 14 years old when Bismarck was replaced as Kanzler of Germany.....and in 1945 he began to build a new political party - the CDU.

In short after the Nazi era of massive State control - excessive even by German standards - they had a political leader (backed by Allied guns) who remembered the world as it had been before two wars and had run a major city even under British Occupation 1919-26; he had negotiated with Henry Ford to bring Ford factories to Cologne; and he had built ring-roads around the city of Cologne.

The Americans re-installed him as Mayor of Cologne in 1945 and the British removed him.....the Americans preferring conservatives and the British preferring socialists.

Anyway, the man had huge knowledge of how to run cities, how to operate with private business, and how to reverse Hitler's destruction of regionalism - he put the capital in Catholic Bonn so it wasnear the Rhine and nearer Paris away from Protestant and socialist Berlin.

Who do we have in this country with such a background to rebuild local democracy, accountability and civic enterprise ?

[BMc]

I am curious as to the benchmark of society in our history that we hold up to be an ideal. While I would not wish to trivialise the current social problems that we are experiencing, I find it hard to pinpoint the time in our past where these problems didn't exist.

If I remember my history correctly, the problems of random and violent crime were far worse in the nineteenth century than the twentieth. The tragic carnage of the first world war removed almost an entire generation of young men, and, as a secondary effect, reduced the pool of potential criminals until the second world war, which did something similar. Post-war austerity and the residual community spirit from the war preserved a degree of social order until the beginning of the sixties where, as Tony points out above, the overall decline in social standards became more apparent.

Two things spring to attention under this analysis - firstly that the rapid decline of society coincides broadly with the rapid decline of the supply of industrial jobs available to the semi and un-skilled.

Secondly that we are, rather depressingly, holding up golden ages of society that were either a direct result of a major international war and the hundreds of thousands of Britons or that we are harking back to a period approximately 100 years ago. Surely such a stance is ultimately self-defeating?

[jorgen]

The society is certainly broken, but not by the people. 40 years of liberalism has resulted in the society of today.

We need more people back into work and more liberal politicians (including pseudo-Conservative like Cameron and his pink and green friends) out of work.

[IRJMilne]

There is no utopia. There is order or chaos, or shades between. Order means human progress, chaos, reordering and/or retrogression. Britain pre-1914 certainly had faults, but so did Roman Britain - in that, we had not yet discovered cures for most illnesses, agricultural advances had not yet secured us against famine, etc. Britain pre-1914, allowed to develop and continue to improve, would have brought us to a far better position than we are in today. In the 1960's, society degenerated. If you take a wrong turning on a road, it is better to go back and take the right road than to keep ploughing ahead. We shouldn't simply reconstruct the past, but adapt the classical and christian values which built "old Britain" to a positive "new vision".

The point about industrial decline in relation to rising crime and disorder is a good one though, and I am unsure what we could do about that.

My other worry is that, since we are no longer the leading world power, we are not the leading arbiters of social culture and structure.

[Yet Another Anon]

Over 50% Council House tenants are surviving on Housing Benefit at a cost 0f £14 bn more than twice the entire spending on unemployment pay. So Council House rents were raised and the taxpayer ends up subsidising them meanwhile poor working families as owner-occupiers are shafted or re-possessed while their Council Tax bills increase.
Housing Benefit in Council Properties is covered by the rents from other tenants, the change to this situation was made in the early 1980's, in addition a third of the council property rent has to be paid to central government, also a change made in the early 1980's.

This is why many councils are transferring their council property stock en bloc to Housing Associations, because the same rules don't apply to Housing Associations who thus have more money to invest. The government also likes this because transferring council property to Housing Association takes the properties out of local authority control and places them under the auspices of the Housing Corporation

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Over 50% Council House tenants are surviving on Housing Benefit at a cost 0f £14 bn more than twice the entire spending on unemployment pay. So Council House rents were raised and the taxpayer ends up subsidising them meanwhile poor working families as owner-occupiers are shafted or re-possessed while their Council Tax bills increase.>>>Wisconsin has a population of 5 million in an area larger than England - what is possible with Scandinavian levels of population is frankly impossible in an urbanised and centralised state like England.<<<<
New York introduced similar things and New Jersey.

I favour switching costs for Housing, Local Authority Tax Relief, Medical and Educational to low interest loans repayable as a certain minimum proportion of earnings over a given amount - say £10,000. Then free state healthcare, free state education, benefits for variable rate costs such as Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit could all end - there would have to be statutory requirements on parents introduced to make sure they didn't try to avoid incurring loan for their children by neglecting them.

Then other benefits could be phased out and replaced by a Resident's Payment - a payment for Resident citizens having a basic component for everyone of all ages, plus an addition based on number of years since the person's 60th birthday up to a limit of 40 years (the Severely Disabled could get the full rate of this even if they were under 60 but over the age of 3 and perhaps those with significant disability half this) and a few other additions replacing things such as Family Premium and Disability Living Allowance. The benefit could be for those under 75 who were able bodied considerably less than current benefit rates, especially single people. Then the Social Fund could be scrapped, things like help with funeral costs could be replaced by provision to deal with the bodies of dead citizens at the cost of the state (a one off event at the end of someone's life) but just a basic sort of disposal of the body.

Otherwise people could be left to themselves, if they spent their money too quickly then they should be allowed to starve and if they break the law then they should be punished severely with imprisonment or torture and execution. Social Services would only concern themselves with children, the elderly and the severely disabled.

Mental Illness could cease to be recognised as either an excuse for avoiding arrest or trial, or sentencing - capital punishment for some crimes should be mandatory irrespective of mental state. People not being present for trial should be tried in absentia. Police should have powers to detain anyone considered to be dangerous or a nuisance to the general public even if they have committed no crime, although if they have committed no crime they should not face the same extent of punishments as those who have, end of a sentence should confer no right to be released, release should only happen once it is considered that they are repentant and won't repeat the crime. A national biometric ID database of all citizens and everyone passing through and others outside the country considered a potential danger to national security is needed.

Jury Trials should be abolished and replaced with a tribunal and trials involving National Security matters could be held in secret with a panel of members of the Security Services and the military.

Spending on Police, the courts, the military and security services needs to be doubled and there need to be major cuts in social spending.

[BMc]

Yet Another Anon - I assume that you're joking from your fourth paragraph onwards. I certainly hope so.

[Yet Another Anon]

No I'm deadly serious - society lacks discipline and that needs to be restored. The authorities need to declare a War on Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour as well as a War on Terror.

[BMc]

I am convinced that your posts are mischevious. I cannot believe that anyone would genuinely suggest such contrary (and frankly revolting) ideas with even the slightest degree of seriousness.

[John Leonard]

Society began to show symptoms in the 50's, was poorly in the 60's, very poorly in the 70's and only improved after surgery in the 80's. Unfortunately, it had a relapse and has declined ever since.

Now it is on life support.

Based on a converse concept of 'If it aint broke - don't fix it'

Does society need fixing? - yes. Therefore it must be broken.

[BMc]

John - While I broadly support your analysis, I think it would be dishonest to congratulate ourselves too heartily about our stint over the 80s.

While the party undoubtedly accomplished great things after the genuine social disintegration of the 70s (let us not forget the stacks of rubbish in the streets and the three day week imposed thanks to union intransigence), we were far from perfect. The riots in London, the problems during the miners strikes and the Poll Tax riot do not indicate a nation at ease with itself.

[Tony Makara]

Since the early 1970s we have been saddled with mass unemployment, this has become more acute since the decline of manufacturing. A nation the size of Britain needs to have a large manufacturing base. The service sector cannot employed people in sufficent numbers to eradicate mass unemployment. Only manufacturing can do this.

We are now experiencing the second post-manufacturing generation. A generation that has grown up without work, and importantly, without the structured responsibiity that comes with work. The self-discipline of getting up in the morning, paying the rent, etc.

Unless we deal with the plague of mass unemployment there will always be a growing, festering underclass with its own sub-culture rooted in anti-social norms.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>I cannot believe that anyone would genuinely suggest such contrary (and frankly revolting) ideas with even the slightest degree of seriousness.<<<<
It isn't contrary at all, human rights legislation, and abolition of capital punishment, and abolition of forms of corporal punishment in prisons and allowing convicts and people considered dangerous a great deal of freedom to roam has caused huge problems. It used to be that people considered dangerous and mentally ill were detained. I don't think people should be detained against their will whether they are mentally ill or not if they aren't considered dangerous and have not committed any crimes, even if they are considered a danger to themselves. There is no reason though why someone who there is reason to believe is dangerous to others should be allowed to remain free to be a danger to general society.

As a deterrent there have to be punishments for crimes, prison conditions are far too generous - far more people could be fitted in the existing buildings if the cells were smaller. More extreme breaking of the law whether in terms of chronic crime or more extreme crimes have to be punished more severely than lesser cases.

[TomTom]

You have valid points Tony but it would have been better to keep T&N or Dunlop or GEC or Lucas or Leyland Trucks......but I am afraid they are gone.

If you wanted to manufacture today Britain is a country that noone would consider. It has few natural resources, high-priced electricity, poor transport infrastructure, and third-rate education.

I have been through this in evaluating plant locations in Europe and Britain sells itself (even advertises itself) as having low wages without mentioning low productivity causes low wages.

For high-grade manufacturing Germany is still top of the pile; for cost-based manufacturing Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary beat Britain hands down....road links to the main markets, cheap warehousing, and if you recall the Japanese electronics plants in South Wales...well Panasonic is in Czech Republic and Sony in Poland now.

The auto industry will leave Western Europe for Central Europe or Russia - cheaper steel, cheaper energy, cheaper labour, growing markets, no Greens.

GM, Ford, Chrysler have just told the UAW they want hourly labour costs down from $71 to nearer $50 which means cuts in health insurance etc.....if the UAW play hardball they will use Plan B and shift auto production out of the USA and become car importers and marketing businesses......just as they plan in Europe.

Manufacturing is leaving Europe and the USA and going to Asia and Central Europe. Europe has no energy supplies apart from coal and so much red tape and regulation that it makes manufacturing high cost even if you paid the workforce zero.

The fact is globalisation will lead to millions of permanent jobless in Western countries - the GDR was simply a foretaste of what is to come

[CCTV]

As a deterrent there have to be punishments for crimes, prison conditions are far too generous - far more people could be fitted in the existing buildings if the cells were smaller.

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDAM

[Yet Another Anon]

If you read accounts of people being held in custody in other places or other times, in many cases you will find that the ceilings of the cells are not high enough for people to stand up in or really move around in at all.

[BMc]

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDAM

Quite.

Yet Another Anon - while few of us would argue against the notion that fitting and appropriate punishment are necessary for a robust legal system, I will go out on a limb and say that I speak for the majority when I doubt that the abolition of Mens Rea and the introduction of punitive torture are the way to go.

[Tony Makara]

Tomtom, We could create a privately owned manufacturing base, primed to exploit global markets, but we would need to have agovernment in place that sets the right macroeconomic conditions. For example sterling would have to operate at export-friendly levels, all unnecessary regulation would have to go, as would restrictions on working hours and the minimum wage. Business could create the jobs but government would have to create the conditions for manufacturing to flourish.

I certainly share you concerns about the global economy leading to even further unemployment under current circumstances, especially in a country like Britain where the service sector cannot provide enough jobs for a population of our size and we become import-dependent because we are not producing enough for our home market. Manufacturing would address both problems. We would be foolish to stand by and watch while powerhouses like China, India and Russia set about to corner world markets.

[BMc]

Tony/TomTom - I read your points with interest and I have a question.

It would seem, to someone with a limited but working knowledge of Europe such as myself, that the EU might be in a position to help encourage British manufacturing, at least in the short term. Further tariffs on importing finished goods from outside Europe would strengthen the opportunity for internal manufacturing competition within Europe. As we do not have the same punitive relationship with the unions as many of our European colleagues do, I would have thought that we would have quite an advantage.

I realise that posting anything potentially pro-Europe will be inviting the ire of many, but I feel it is a valid point.

[Yet Another Anon]

I will go out on a limb and say that I speak for the majority when I doubt that the abolition of Mens Rea and the introduction of punitive torture are the way to go.
Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz has argued for the abolition of the insanity plea and he is only one in the psychiatric profession who has done so, it merely adds to possible excuses a defence lawyer can manipulate to get someone off who may well be faking it anyway and in addition there are arguments that psychiatric conditions are not actually definable as being an illness in the sense that there is no demonstrable physical cause in the way that there is in neurological conditions. I'm a bit dubious of neurological conditions being allowed in homicide cases or rape - a life for a life is only fair.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>I will go out on a limb and say that I speak for the majority when I doubt that the abolition of Mens Rea and the introduction of punitive torture are the way to go.<<<<
Wish there could be a standardisation of formatting between different articles, anyway that bit had been intended to be in italics.

[Tony Makara]

BMc, The problem the world faces is emerging markets, particularly China which openly tells its own people that its primary objective is to end 'Western economic pre-eminence' While we have politicians wedded to the orthodoxy of unfettered free-trade we will always be import-dependent. Nations like China openly cook their economy to fit their export objectives. We should do the same. I would fully support tariffs on nations with 'Economic Advantage' over us like China. I sense the American's are starting to get wise to China's tactics. The EU, if itsworth its salt should go back to the original principles of the EEC which was meant to be an internal market.