15/08/2011 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/08/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



"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,


Download Subtitles