15/08/2011 Newsnight

"Slow motion moral collapse". Was it the cause of the riots as the

Prime Minister claimed today? Do either of these men have a solution

to what caused so much civil unrest last week? Is it David Cameron's

way, all about instilling personal responsibility, or Miliband's plan

for more jobs and opportunities? I'm joined by David Willetts,

Hilary Benn and the Bishop of Kingston. David Cameron declares

war on gangs - do these Hackney teenagers think he can win it?

REPORTER: If he says war, what will the effect be? Big war. Bigger war

than already. Does the American way offer a solution to gang violence?

I'll be asking a former New York Police Commissioner. And are the so

called "feral rich" in their own way as much to blame for our moral

malaise as the feral poor? And also tonight, the economic malaise. On

the eve of the Merkel-Sarkozy Summit, how do Germans feel about

Good evening. The arrests continue in London and in other English

cities, the courts are still jammed, hundreds are on remand and the

convicted are beginning their sentences. Now the politicians are

trying to work out all the things that have gone wrong, but their

solutions are different. For David Cameron, it is about an absence of

morality - fatherless households, poor parenting. He said that

politicians' failure to moralise had been the cause of social

breakdown. In a concurrent speech, Ed Miliband emphasised the role of

workless households, the lack of facilities for teenagers and a

dearth of opportunities. David A slow motion moral collapse - a

nation whose values are in crisis. The Prime Minister's message was

what we saw last week was not a moment of madness but decades in

the making. At a speech in his Oxfordshire constituency, Mr

Cameron promised the Government would look at every single one of

its social policies. This must be a wake-up call for our country.

Social problems have exploded in our face. The causes were all too

clear. Irresponsibility, selfishness, behaving as if your

choices have no consequences, children without fathers, schools

without discipline, reward without effort. Crime without punishment,

rights without responsibilities, communities without control. Some

of the worst aspects of human nature, sometimes incentivised by a

state and its agencies that have become demoralised. So do we have

the determination to confront all this and turn it round? The Prime

Minister declared an all-out war on gangs and gang culture. And there

will be plans to improve parenting including targeting 120,000 of the

most troubled families in the country who will have their lives

turned around or improved by the next general election. There will

be a review of human rights and health and safety legislation. And

how far can those convicted of crimes be stripped of their

benefits? Even those on the right who welcomed the message worry

about how practical this get tough agenda is. Even though a lot of

people support it, I would be surprised if people lose their

council houses or benefits because they have been involved in

criminality. There is an agenda around the idea of conditionality

which could make some progress, the idea that there should be greater

conditions on receiving benefits. I think those ideas are practical.

The ideas of taking away people's benefits will probably not happen.

Then there is the David Cameron's coalition partners. This lady says

her colleagues would fight such benefits changes hard. If we are

going to rehabilitate people and make them part of society, they

need to have enough money to be able to have a roof over their head

to be able to put food on the table and to be able to get themselves in

a position where they can find work. If we cut people's benefits, they

are less likely to be able to do that and also they are more likely

to turn to crime to get enough money to live on. So we could end

up making the situation worse. Labour Leader was dismissive of the

Government's plans. Ed Miliband thinks more work is needed to

identify the causes of the disturbances. He wants the

Government to call a full-blown inquiry into what happened. Instant

and simple judgments in response to these events bring bad solutions.

Of course, the public says we want quick action. A new policy a day,

knee-jerk gimmicks, they won't solve the problem. Let's be honest

about the politicians in this - appointed new advisor, that won't

meet the public's demand for real and lasting solutions.

Government is not planning to have the full statutory inquiry that

Labour wants. But tomorrow the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg

will announce what's being described as a grassroots

engagement exercise hearing from victims and communities about what

went wrong. The Government is already convinced that the police

need urgent reform. The public spat with senior officers continued over

the weekend. Plans to seek advice from a senior American policeman

have not gone down well. Sir Hugh Orde, President of ACPO, speaking

A week ago tonight, this was the scene at Clapham Junction. The

police did nothing to stop the looting for two hours. Tomorrow,

the Home Secretary will make a speech promising to press ahead

with police reform. Not that long ago a Conservative

Prime Minister would rather be caught looting Debenhams than

having a knock-down row with the police about who knows best about

protecting the public. What's changed? Well, the first thing

that's changed is Ministers don't think they have got a choice at the

moment. If they back down now, it will not only they fear be the end

of their police reform agenda, it could put a big hole in their plans

to tackle the budget deficit. There's another reason. They think

the mood of voters has profoundly changed. What happened here at

Clapham Junction they think adds to a mood that the police aren't

getting it done any more. The Prime Minister knows that other

politicians before him have promised to re-build the nation's

morals. He knows too that the public tell pollsters they yearn

for such action. The big difficulty is not identifying the many

problems, it is finding policies that will sort them out.

I'm joined by the Higher Education Minister, David Willetts, the

Shadow Leader of the House, Hilary Benn, and the Bishop of Kingston,

Dr Richard Cheetham. Slow motion moral collapse - what is moral

collapse? Well, we have seen on our TVs what that is. We should be

clear about the moral difference between the people that we have

just seen raiding shops, threatening individuals, and then

the following day in that same part of Clapham the people who gathered

buying their new brooms to clean up. That is the difference between

people doing the wrong thing and the right thing. Although we have

our own imperfections, all of us should begin by recognising that is

an important difference in the way people behave. David Cameron wants

deeper and accelerated programme on parenting. That was a key message

that he had today along with the idea that fatherless households

were to be discouraged. We spoke to a pressure group on cuts and the

list of cuts to parenting groups is quite extensive. Everything from

2,000 to 40,000, you will have to turn around a lot of money to help

parents? Well, if you look at the 120,000 families that you reported

in your clip, the families that have the greatest problems, there

is an enormous amount of money going into those at the moment. The

living rooms of some of those families is like Victoria Station.

It's not treating the whole person. This is one example of a wider

truth that you can do better. I suspect that one of the very

widespread factors behind those people that we saw rioting is I

suspect a lot of them were in families where there has not been

an actively involved father. Have these riots given David Cameron the

moral authority to say things, a licence to say things he wouldn't

say otherwise? You see, the point is that David right from the

beginning - I remember his first speech - this theme of what's gone

wrong with our society is something that he personally cares deeply

about. What has happened... Then he moved on to the NHS... What's

happened in the past week, it's shown the validity of so much of

what he was saying then. There is why there is a new impetus behind

the welfare reforms, the school reforms. It has a new energy

because it is so needed. politicians - are they right -

should Ed Miliband be setting the moral agenda? I don't think it is

for us to moralise. It is, isn't it? We have to say what we think is

right and what is wrong. We have to understand the causes of this. I'm

sorry, David Cameron having made that speech in 2006, he has moved

away from it. What Ed Miliband was saying today is we have seen a lot

of gimmicks, or evicting people from their homes. I don't think

those are the answers to the problems. You saw the opposition

from the Liberal Democrats the possibility of withdrawal of

benefits. What do you make of that? This is one of the many ideas that

we will have to look at. You are considering it? We will look at it

across the coalition. I have to say, hearing a Minister in the Tony

Blair Government denouncing gimmicks is a bit rich. The fact is,

I remember Frank Field proposing measures on tightening the links

between access to housing benefit and housing and anti-social

behaviour. Tony Blair talked about it. They didn't do anything about

it. Bishop, when you hear this - and the gimmicks and moralising,

are politicians the one from whom we should take our moral lessons?

It involves far more than the politicians. The politicians ought

to be involved in something to do with the moral framework of our

country. They are key players in the forming of laws and that is

closely linked to morality. Moralising then, what David Cameron

is saying per se, fatherless households are bad per se, marriage

is better than non-marriage? course, it is right that certain

things need to be condemned as being utterly wrong and a clear

distinction between right and wrong. In the area that I cover - and

Clapham is part of my area - I was on the streets on Tuesday morning,

I have spoken to some of those affected, so I know the damage that

has been done to people's lives. we need - we don't live in the same

society that people lived in when the Ten Commandments were brought

about. Do we need a new moral contract that everybody can

understand? We need clear moral frameworks. We need to take a close

look I think about how moral character is formed in people. The

chief Rabbi spoke about the importance of the inner policeman.

We can't, as I think bril Bratton said, we can't arrest our way --

Bill Bratton said, we can't arrest our way out of this programme. That

is true. Can you clarify something that David Cameron said about we

must look to see if health and safety legislation and the Human

Rights Act is stimeying our efforts in that direction? In the very

early hours of this, there was an issue about whether or not it was

OK to put on TV the images of people who were involved in rioting

so some people were suggesting even this might not be possible. You

endlessly hear these type of arguments which are based on a

misunderstanding of the law and we will be tackling this. Can I go

back to what the bishop said? I think what's happened for us as

politicians is because we are all imperfect ourselves, because we all

know... You put this very... that reason, people have become

aware of trying to make any moral judgment at all. Unless you are

Mother Teresa, you are not allowed to talk about morality. You did

before "back to basics"? Of course, that is the issue. We should be

allowed - morality is too important to be left to people... Hilary

Benn? I was going to say, on CCTV images, there is no problem, we

have seen them on the television, they are proving effective. What we

really need is to listen to the people who have been on the

receiving end of this violence, we need to listen to those, some of

those who have been causing the problems to understand why. Isn't

it the bigger... We have to have a proper inquiry. Tomorrow, there

will be some sort of listening exercise. If that is the first

stage, I welcome it. Everybody knows there is going to have to be

a full inquiry. Do you really want an inquiry that takes three years?

No. It is not just necessarily drilled down into the areas where

there has been unrest, there is a moral malaise. Having a proper

inquiry into this, surely it is listening quickly to what people

are saying on the ground? I want an inquiry to be done as quickly as

possible. Bishop, is this going to be fixed for the next general

election? I do think we need a proper deep look at it. I was

immensely grateful for the swift response to putting, sorting some

of these riots out. I think we need to take a rather more measured look

at the causes of these because they are complex. To talk about causes

does not excuse some of these actions. I agree with what David

was saying, we need far more people engaged in moral discussion and

where the roots of our morality comes from about our sense of what

makes the good life and we have become a very inquisitive kind of

culture which has quite a cancerous effect on the overall climate.

we've been hearing, some of the blame for last week's riots has

been laid at the door of a gang culture in English cities. Paul

Mason's been to Hackney where shops were burnt out and looters rampaged

on the streets to find out what they make of the Prime Minister's

By tea time there was almost a wartime feel about the Pembury

estate, Hackney. The staff of M&S provided the cakes. Community

leaders came and the youth themselves. The only people

missing? The hardened gang members who are supposed to have caused it

all. They were front of mind for David Cameron. It is time for

something else too. A concerted all-out war on gangs and gang

culture. And here is how the war on gangs went down among the youth of

Hackney. What - can you explain what kind of war you mean? He means

intervening with police against drugs, against gun violence? We are

getting stopped on the streets for that. If we don't have anything, we

get put inside cells. If he says war on gangs, what will the effect

be? War. A big war. Bigger war than already. You think that will

happen? Yeah. If it is not war on gangs, how would you solve the

problem of violence in a place like this? Stop the stop and search

first of all. We don't like stop and search. Get rid of the police.

Get them out of our communities. Calm. Peace. And the local vicar

was no more enthusiastic. To use words like "war against gangs" is

very dangerous and it is likely to cause greater division. Why? A lot

of people outside Hackney think they have had enough with areas

that are dominated by gangs. Surely we should crackdown on them?

don't think it is that similar pl. There are mitigating circumstances

as to why people -- it is that simple. There are mitigating

circumstances as to why people join gangs. The lives of people here are

plagued by gangs. When it comes to a war on gangs, this part of London

is one of the most studied areas in Western Europe and what the studies

tell us is that the world of youth on the streets and the serious guys

with serious firearms and big cars and then the criminal families

running drugs into the country, these are three very different

worlds. So where do you start the war? If you are running a business

selling crack cocaine or heroin, on the street or in your estate, the

last thing you want is a load of coppers running in, none of your

customers will show up. Who was it? I think it was the younger kids,

kids who got carried away with the moment who wanted to prove to their

mates that they were up for it and bold and things like that. Hackney,

which was torn by rioting last week, is home to numerous warring street

gangs, the Pembury boys, the 925, the London Fields Boys and some

others. The problem for the police is what does war with them mean?

Five days before the riots, 300 police swooped on the Pembury

estate raiding 32 addresses, arresting 23 people, this after the

longest covert policing operation in the Met's history. Pembury still

became the centre of rioting. This man, a long time community activist,

alleges the police had made an arrangement with one of the rival

gangs. You think the police did a deal with the London Fields Gang?

They didn't do a deal. I'm saying what they did was, they told them,

they said you can do what you like, OK, as long as you do not touch a

police officer. This is before the riot? Not just before. This was

months ago because the police officer had a gun pointed at him

and if you can go to these young kids, yeah, and say that, you can

say, "You all need to put down your guns, or we will come down heavy on

you." Isn't that simple policing? Which is what some police forces

have been doing. In Manchester police targeted businesses fronting

gang operations and gave the gang members a choice - get out or we

make your lives a misery. It is called the ceasefire strategy.

you don't want these people to be in gangs, you have to say where do

I want them to be? If the answer is I want them to be in education,

training and work, I think there are all sorts of implications for

your economic policies which are obvious. In Hackney, those who will

have to fight the new war on gangs are veterans of it. All they need

to know is what the new strategy can be that they have not tried

before. Paul Mason there. Now the Prime Minister has appointed Bill

Bratton, former Police Chief in New York and Los Angeles, who has

extensive experience of dealing with gangs as an advisor. It's not

an appointment that's been universally welcomed by police here

in the UK who doubt that the American model can work this side

of the Atlantic. I'm joined now from Washington by Howard Safir who

worked closely with Bill Bratton as Police Commissioner in New York and

here in the studio by Ian Hanson from the Greater Manchester Police

Federation. What do you think Bill Bratton has to offer the police

forces here? I know Bill well. I succeeded him after he left New

York and Bill has had extensive experience in Boston, New York and

Los Angeles in dealing with gangs and dealing with them very

successfully. The issue is whether or not the American model

translates to England and whether or not the British police and the

British political system is ready for it. Bill certainly know what is

to do and will be a valued advisor. Is that your view, Ian Hanson, that

we need Bill Bratton to review policing here? It is not a question

of bringing in people from abroad. We have some fantastic people in

the UK in policing. The problem is the only people who seem to have

been left out with the police officers of Great Britain. The

Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are not engaging with the

people who are doing this job on a daily basis. It is the police

officers who stop the riots, not the politicians. And now what we

need is an honest engagement and intelligent discussion with the

police officers of the UK. Wouldn't you welcome good advice from

wherever it comes? If it comes from Bill Bratton, fine? By all means.

We will speak to anybody. The people the Home Secretary should be

listening to are the practitioners. What were the tactics that Bill

Bratton used? The kind of things that are - and it is not just Bill

Bratton - one of the things I want to point out is, I have many

friends in the Met. They are very competent. It is a question of

philosophy. The philosophy in policing in the United States is

the only people who should fear police are criminals, that the

public should not but that is very important that criminals fear the

police and that we do predictive policing that we gather

intelligence, that we have contingency plans for any kind of

event and one of the reasons that we have had almost no civil

disturbances of the magnitude that you had in London is because we

have contingency plans for every possible contingency. Isn't it the

case that what Bill Bratton did was use a local crime tax to raise

money for 5,000 more police officers? Well, resources are a

very important issue. One of the things that - I was police

commisioner in New York twice as long as Bill Bratton. One of the

things that changed New York from being the crime capital of the

world to the safest large city in America were resources. The

previous speaker talked about talking to the operators. He is

right. What you have to have the political will of the politicians

to give police the resources in money and people to be able to

execute... We understand that Theresa May is going to say

tomorrow the police reforms will go ahead. Bill Bratton got 5,000 extra

police officers. You have 20% cuts? Exactly. The Police Service of The

UK is exhausted. The public are frightened and the police service

don't know where we are going to go from here. We can't function with

20,000 less police officers. In America, my colleague there says

there that it raised establishments. We are expected to do more with

less. Bill Bratton maybe will come in and say you can't go ahead with

these cuts? Shouldn't he be engaging with us? We don't want an

army of occupation in the UK. It is a different style of policing.

Howard Safir seems to be saying is it is proactive rather than

reactive. Do you accept that police here are too reactive? We would

love to be able to react proactively. We haven't got enough

resources. Or maybe you are not organising them... I will take you

to any police station. I will show you how well organised these police

officers are. Up-and-down the country last week there were not

enough police officers in place and it is nothing more than that. We

have spoke about "zero tolerance" policing. We would Loch to do that.

We haven't got the re-- we would love to do that. We haven't got the

resources. You said it was about a mixture of resources and style of

policing. Do you think that Bill Bratton might say you don't have

the resources? Well, resources are very important. Tactics are very

important. Strategy is very important. If you don't have the

people and the economic resources and the equipment, you will not

succeed. One of the things we found in New York was, if you invest in

law enforcement and professional policing, everything else follows.

The economy of New York went from being in terrible deficit to being

very well positioned when crime went down because people wanted to

come to New York City, conventions, tourists, businesses. That is

something I think is short-sighted on the part of politicians.

Tomorrow morning, Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel will meet in

Paris to discuss, yet again, the European debt crisis, but this

summit is set against a deep divide about the remedy. The idea of

"mutualising the debt" by the creation of Eurobonds, which would

radically reduce the repayment interest rates for countries such

as Greece, Portugal and Spain, is favoured by Italy's Finance

Minister and by the international financier, George Soros, but

Germany is opposed, partly because the move could affect Germany's

credit rating. In a moment, I'll be talking to the Nobel Laureate in

Economics, Josef Stiglitz, but first here's Madeleine Morris. On

the face of it, Germans have plenty to smile about. Their economy is

growing at a healthy 3%. Unemployment has dropped over the

last couple of years. Exports of their manufactured goods are high.

Beneath these smiles, there is a worry. The party is over. We

basically had a bubble. Now we are sitle sitting like we are in the

aftermath of a party. 50 years ago this month the Berlin Wall went up.

That great symbol of the Cold War division between east and west. Now,

Germany finds itself again at the centre of a European crisis. This

time, between north and south. The question for Angela Merkel and the

German people is how much are they prepared to sacrifice to keep the

European project on line? To help its troubled neighbours and keep

the euro stable, in July Germany agreed to pay into an expanded

European bail-out fund worth 440 billion euro. Angela Merkel still

has to get that through the German Parliament. There are already fears

that the fund won't be big enough to stop the rot. That worries

Germans. Nobody can be happy. I suffer with the other people and we

have fears for the future. I'm no banker. I couldn't say. You are a

taxpayer? Yeah. We pay a lot of tax right now. There should be a limit

to pay all this money to other countries. And then there's the

question of eurobonds, debt issued by the whole eurozone instead of

individual member states. Many economic high-flyers including the

financer George Soros say eurobonds are necessary to save the eurozone.

France and Germany have said they won't be on the agenda on Tuesday.

In a Newsnight interview recorded last week, Germany's Foreign

Minister explained the thinking. There are different ways of

solidarity in the European Union and in the eurozone. This does not

mean the necessity of eurobonds. We don't want to have a situation

where the national Parliaments do not feel themselves responsibility

for the budgets and for their fiscal discipline. This is what is

necessary. What we are facing now is not the crisis of the euro, it

is a crisis because of the debts. Angela Merkel has been accused of

dithering over the crisis, neither promoting a closer fiscal union,

nor cutting southern Europe loose. With polls turning against her,

some commentators believe that can't go on. I would be much more

in favour for the German side. We are facing a very honest discussion

and we say look, we knew from the very beginning in '92, the monetary

union without a fiscal entity will not function. Either we do this now

- there is still the bail-out, this is sort of speaking here and acting

there. This is what citizens detect as not being honest. This is the

problem in terms of communication. That is where you lose faith and

the voters. The political editor of the country's most popular

newspaper says nothing less than the Chancellor's job is on the line.

People asked, we have governments, we have Chancellor, we have a

Finance Minister, what do they do about the euro crisis? If the euro

crisis is fixed, she will win the next election. If it blows up, she

will lose. It is easy. Even Gordon Brown has criticised Angela Merkel

saying July's euro summit was a wasted opportunity. That is

something Germany's Foreign Minister firmly rejects.

management of the crisis is important but also to take the

right consequences for the future and this is also important in our

days. We are facing now a forked road for Europe and the European

Union. We can decide do we go the way of less Europe, or do we go the

way of more Europe? We think it is necessary to answer this crisis

with more Europe which means that we have to implement of course the

conclusions of July. For decades Germany has been in the driving

seat of Europe but this crisis has caught it on the hop, reacting to

events dictated but its southern neighbours rather than setting the

agenda. The big question now facing German politicians is whether they

can lead in Europe as well as keeping the German people happy?

Germans are still remarkably pro- European and the country has

benefited greatly from the EU. As the eurozone spins more and more

out of control, the cost of their convictions is only going to rise.

Joining me now live from Columbia University in New York is the

economist Joseph Stiglitz. Good evening. Nice to be here. Is there

any future for the euro without eurobonds? Well, I think it will be

very difficult. There are other ways but the basic fact one has to

come to grips with is that Europe as a whole is in very good

financial position. The debt, GDP ratio is lower than the United

States. But with so little fiscal room in so many of the countries

unless some framework like European bonds are promoted, it will be very

difficult for countries like Greece or Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal,

to be able to meet their financial requirements. One of the points in

this discussion that has been lost is that the cost of Germany, to

Germany of dropping out is very large. If Germany were on its own,

its exchange rate would depreciate. It's benefited enormously from the

weak euro and Germany would have to pay severe consequences from the

failure of others to repay their loans because they were the lenders.

You heard the German Finance Minister opposed to a eurobond,

talking about the problem without fiscal discipline. It is like

giving your teenager a credit card, the Foreign Minister said? The fact

of creating a European bond framework doesn't mean that it is

done without discipline. There can be limits to the amount that can be

and the conditions under which these bonds get issued. Let's be

frank. In effect, governments are borrowing, they are borrowing from

their individual banks, private banks and then these bonds are

being rediscounted by the European Central Bank. In a way, it's

already happening, but in a non- transparent way. And with a lot of

uncertainty about when it is going to continue, how it is going to go

forward. So right now, in effect, many governments are borrowing from

Europe as a whole. If there isn't some solution like a eurobond, and

if Germany doesn't step up to the plate to back the euro, is it

likely that we will see countries like Greece and Portugal leaving

the euro? It would be better for the euro if Germany left. The

consequences for restructuring debts if Greece leaves or Portugal,

or Ireland, are going to be very great. There will be great

complexities and restructuring debt. Much easier if Germany...

Politically, it is not going to happen? The question is, if Europe

decides that the only way that it is going to continue is through

some solidarity funds, solidarity approaches including eurobonds, and

Germany says we don't want to pay the price, then it will be Germany

that will have to leave. There will be questions about the governing

structure, unanimity, if everybody except Germany decide they want to

create this fund, but a couple of them don't, it is not clear who is

leaving and who is staying. Tell me, though, crisis meeting in July,

crisis meeting tomorrow, how quickly does this have to be

nailed? Well, they keep having these crisis meetings and in spite

of a lot of progress that they made in the July meeting, the fact is

the fundamental problem, when the euro was created, it was not an

optimal currency area. Other differences made it difficult for

this system to work. It was only a matter of time until the

difficulties of working with it as a single currency came to the fore.

It is quite remarkable - the euro was only started in 2000. Its track

record is not that long. Thank you very much. We return to the

criminality of last week and the comparisons that have been made

between what are being called the feral rich and the feral poor, the

greed and avariciousness of bankers, MPs fiddling their expenses, Met

police officers on backhanders, and the theft from local stores by

looters grabbing anything they can get their hands on. Can we equate

one with the other? In a moment, I'll be speaking to the MP Stella

Creasey, who has a PhD in Social Psychology, and the Editor of City

AM, Alistair Heath, but first a reminder of the scandals that have

There was a period of remorse. That Give us our money back!

What is the message to your I have decided to send to the

Inland Revenue a cheque which is the equivalent of what would have

been paid in Capital Gains Tax had it been liable when I have moved

Your only motive was profit. You are not journalists? I would like

to say just how sorry I am and how sorry we are. I'm joined by the

Labour MP Stella Creasey and by Alistair Heath. Is the culture that

gave us the excess of the bankers the same that gives us the looters

on the streets? No. Of course the rot at the top of our society needs

to be fought. I don't think the first caused or can justify the

second. In fact, it makes our job harder. We find it harder to

understand why we had all of this chaos on the streets last week. It

will make it harder to fight it. is reasonable to assume these

looters who were stealing big televisions think if somebody can

fiddle �8,000 on their expenses, if somebody can take a bonus even

though RBS is losing money, why can't we have a piece of the

action? I think... I think that is too middle-class. If you are

smashing a shop, you are not thinking about these things.

that your analysis, Stella Creasey? I don't think anybody was so weak

minded that the expensess crisis or the bankers were in their minds

when they were stealing these TVs. It is about the signals that we

send. The important of being very clear that there are sanctions for

bad behaviour and in that sense, there is a commonalty in saying if

we have a culture and we don't put sanctions, there is a problem.

it morally wrong to be avaricious? How did we get here to have a

society when the looters came to my area other people followed them and

they thought it was OK to take trainers. That is what moral

questions are about. It is about all of us understanding the

consequences of people's behaviour and coming together to say these

aren't the values that we want to see in our society. Those values go

across every area of society? do. It is a mistake and a

misunderstanding to come up with criminal explanations for the

recession. We have to tackle everything. We have to tackle phone

hacking, police corruption, problems in the economy. I think

what we saw on the streets was very different. It was a tragic tale of

this group of people who were completely alienated from society.

The people on the streets, they alienate themselves, are they

separate? Are they separate? In fact, Shirley Williams coined the

expression "the underclass". Are you saying they are different?

have become different as a result of flawed policies from both

parties, from the establishment. That is where the rich are to blame.

They thought chucking money at these people would make the

problems go away. They were wrong. Other than that, we should make

clear distinctions between looting, arson, murder and the sort of

things we have seen during the "credit crunch". Redistribution,

Tony Blair never worried about the gap between rich and poor.

Redistribution in your book is the right thing to do if it is

accompanied by better policies in general? Moral arguments allow us

to do what Alistair Heath is asking us to do. So people who commit

fraud and bankers who behave in ways which are morally

reprehensible. The consequences of their behaviour are damaging to the

rest of society. There is an important cultural debate to be had

here. The Prime Minister and Ed Miliband have talked about the

signals we send out, about the social norms that we want to see

our society living by, values to you and me. It is right we are able

to differentiate between those and criminal activities. A moral debate

needs to have many people taking part in it. That is why I am

concerned when I hear people talk about an underclass. Thank you both

very much. Tomorrow morning's front-pages. The Guardian, tough

love and tougher policing: PM's solution for "Broken Britain".

National Service for every teenager - in the Daily Express. The Times,