The right line, not the hard-line

By Darrell Goodliffe

It is awfully tempting and yes understandable to call for the state to do something, anything, in the face of events like the riots of the last week. Politicians, who seek to justify their position, are usually more than willing to oblige because they need to be seen as being ‘in charge’ and ‘in control’ of events which stun them just as much they do us. Having said that, this temptation is usually one that should be resisted because panic, fear, a strong feeling of insecurity and desire for retribution are the handmaidens of bad and, ultimately, counterproductive policy.

Policy decisions should be assessed in the cold, dispassionate light of day because if they are not we will only reap what we have sown at a later date. It is in that light that Labour must now step forward as the party of civil liberties not just because it democratically the right thing to do, but because rationally it is the right thing to do as well. So, when we hear things like, the proposal to shut down social networking sites during disturbances we have to ask ourselves some searching questions. Questions like whether the actions of a minority warrant the collective curtailing of everyone’s right to use these sites without fear of government censure. As one Tweeter puts it:

“I pay my taxes, obey the law, work hard, so why should David Cameron take Twitter away from me”.

We also have to recognise that it is people that choose to use Twitter in the way they do, the medium itself is neutral ( and incidentally, easily replaceable by people intent on committing acts we all agree were wrong). Furthermore, it played a positive role in alerting people to potential trouble spots and organising clean-ups. We may well consider the submission of the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, who said overall the net effect of Twitter was ‘positive’ during the disturbances. Even when we are looking at the removal of social media from those convicted, is this really sensible? Although some were purely criminal, some were ‘the unheard’. They had grievances which simply weren’t listened too and one of the welcome facets of our leadership response has been a tacit acknowledgement of that from the likes of Harriet Harman and Ken Livingstone. It is heartening that some people understand the difference between “excusing” and “explaining”.

Similarly, I find the suggestion these people be stripped of their welfare and/or evicted (along with innocents, ie, their families) abhorrent and nonsensical. If we want to sentence these people to a life of crime and encourage them to inflict further harm on wider communities, then we are going the right way about it. Again, instead of taking the ‘hard-line’, rationally we need to look at what some people will call the ‘soft-line’; for example, we should seriously examine the role community service and rehabilitative punishment has to play here because it would give these people a stake in the community they recklessly trashed.

The simple truth (and its one that politicians wont tell you) is that extending state power in response to acts that are symptoms of deeper social problems doesn’t work. If anything it tends to have the reverse effect and draw broader layers of people into direct conflict with the state and thus effectively, pour oil on the flames. The Twitter proposals, for example, moved a lot of people instantaneously from a position of supporting ‘law and order’ to being against it and willing to defy it. People may well think a ‘hard-line’ is the rational one to take; but it simply isn’t, in fact, it’s the most irrational one. Now is the time for Labour to prove it has learnt its lesson on civil liberties and stand tall and proud as a defender of them and, in a broader context, to prove it is not a ‘hard-line’ party, but one that takes the right line.