WTF Southport?

[Sandydragon]

And in the case of inequality, Boris promised to level up which basically didn’t happen. But large parts of the country have been ignored for a long time

Levelling up is an ill-defined concept (what else would you expect, it's one of Johnson's) that is related to the idea of regional equality. Which has obviously not been a priority nor a success in the hands of the Tories.

But regional equality is of course just one, limited, kind of equality. Having regional equality (depending on how it was done) wouldn't necessarily improve economic equality (although I'm all for it, it's a move in the right direction).

My pont is that it's the poor who are struggling and falling for the easy answers from the right and going after their invented scapegoats as a result. So reducing overall inequality would solve the problem at source.

What do you think? Do you think relative poverty is the underlying problem? If not then what? If you do, but don't think reducing inequality would help then what would you do to reduce poverty and give people better lives?

I’m a tad wary of the relative poverty measurement. Someone will always be poorer but there should be certain things that anyone in Britain should be guaranteed unless they choose to go off grid. The ability to get safe and affordable housing is one for example.


There is of course inequality in the south east as well as anywhere else. But I’d also argue that the UK is too London centric and if we are going to grow our economy, and if you want redistribution the it helps if there’s more to distribute in the first place, then getting a northern powerhouse established ( and for other parts of the UK) is pretty important. Too
Many parts of the UK are missing the industry which made them what they are today and we need to rebalance that.
That would be my focus, which would include transport, housing education and business development.

[Son of Mathonwy]

And in the case of inequality, Boris promised to level up which basically didn’t happen. But large parts of the country have been ignored for a long time

Levelling up is an ill-defined concept (what else would you expect, it's one of Johnson's) that is related to the idea of regional equality. Which has obviously not been a priority nor a success in the hands of the Tories.

But regional equality is of course just one, limited, kind of equality. Having regional equality (depending on how it was done) wouldn't necessarily improve economic equality (although I'm all for it, it's a move in the right direction).

My pont is that it's the poor who are struggling and falling for the easy answers from the right and going after their invented scapegoats as a result. So reducing overall inequality would solve the problem at source.

What do you think? Do you think relative poverty is the underlying problem? If not then what? If you do, but don't think reducing inequality would help then what would you do to reduce poverty and give people better lives?

I’m a tad wary of the relative poverty measurement. Someone will always be poorer but there should be certain things that anyone in Britain should be guaranteed unless they choose to go off grid. The ability to get safe and affordable housing is one for example.
Nñnn

There is of course inequality in the south east as well as anywhere else. But I’d also argue that the UK is too London centric and if we are going to grow our economy, and if you want redistribution the it helps if there’s more to distribute in the first place, then getting a northern powerhouse established ( and for other parts of the UK) is pretty important. Too
Many parts of the UK are missing the industry which made them what they are today and we need to rebalance that.
That would be my focus, which would include transport, housing education and business development.

I don't mean relative poverty in any specific technical sense, just being poor, struggling to pay the bills, the rent, the mortgage, to get enough food to eat, with no sign of light at the end of the tunnel. Do you think this is a big driver (or the biggest, as I think) of the unrest? If not then what is?

(Agreed, regional economic differences should be reduced as much as possible. The UK is definitely too London-centric - even if there are large numbers of Londoners struggling to get by.)

[Stom]

Levelling up is an ill-defined concept (what else would you expect, it's one of Johnson's) that is related to the idea of regional equality. Which has obviously not been a priority nor a success in the hands of the Tories.

But regional equality is of course just one, limited, kind of equality. Having regional equality (depending on how it was done) wouldn't necessarily improve economic equality (although I'm all for it, it's a move in the right direction).

My pont is that it's the poor who are struggling and falling for the easy answers from the right and going after their invented scapegoats as a result. So reducing overall inequality would solve the problem at source.

What do you think? Do you think relative poverty is the underlying problem? If not then what? If you do, but don't think reducing inequality would help then what would you do to reduce poverty and give people better lives?

I’m a tad wary of the relative poverty measurement. Someone will always be poorer but there should be certain things that anyone in Britain should be guaranteed unless they choose to go off grid. The ability to get safe and affordable housing is one for example.
Nñnn

There is of course inequality in the south east as well as anywhere else. But I’d also argue that the UK is too London centric and if we are going to grow our economy, and if you want redistribution the it helps if there’s more to distribute in the first place, then getting a northern powerhouse established ( and for other parts of the UK) is pretty important. Too
Many parts of the UK are missing the industry which made them what they are today and we need to rebalance that.
That would be my focus, which would include transport, housing education and business development.

I don't mean relative poverty in any specific technical sense, just being poor, struggling to pay the bills, the rent, the mortgage, to get enough food to eat, with no sign of light at the end of the tunnel. Do you think this is a big driver (or the biggest, as I think) of the unrest? If not then what is?

(Agreed, regional economic differences should be reduced as much as possible. The UK is definitely too London-centric - even if there are large numbers of Londoners struggling to get by.)

Inequality.

There are multiple studies that show clear correlation between income and wealth inequality and violent crime.

[Which Tyler]

I just think the French should be more grateful that we volunteered to host their annual riots, whilst they were busy hosting the Olympics

[Banquo]

I just think the French should be more grateful that we volunteered to host their annual riots, whilst they were busy hosting the Olympics

[Sandydragon]

Levelling up is an ill-defined concept (what else would you expect, it's one of Johnson's) that is related to the idea of regional equality. Which has obviously not been a priority nor a success in the hands of the Tories.

But regional equality is of course just one, limited, kind of equality. Having regional equality (depending on how it was done) wouldn't necessarily improve economic equality (although I'm all for it, it's a move in the right direction).

My pont is that it's the poor who are struggling and falling for the easy answers from the right and going after their invented scapegoats as a result. So reducing overall inequality would solve the problem at source.

What do you think? Do you think relative poverty is the underlying problem? If not then what? If you do, but don't think reducing inequality would help then what would you do to reduce poverty and give people better lives?

I’m a tad wary of the relative poverty measurement. Someone will always be poorer but there should be certain things that anyone in Britain should be guaranteed unless they choose to go off grid. The ability to get safe and affordable housing is one for example.
Nñnn

There is of course inequality in the south east as well as anywhere else. But I’d also argue that the UK is too London centric and if we are going to grow our economy, and if you want redistribution the it helps if there’s more to distribute in the first place, then getting a northern powerhouse established ( and for other parts of the UK) is pretty important. Too
Many parts of the UK are missing the industry which made them what they are today and we need to rebalance that.
That would be my focus, which would include transport, housing education and business development.

I don't mean relative poverty in any specific technical sense, just being poor, struggling to pay the bills, the rent, the mortgage, to get enough food to eat, with no sign of light at the end of the tunnel. Do you think this is a big driver (or the biggest, as I think) of the unrest? If not then what is?

(Agreed, regional economic differences should be reduced as much as possible. The UK is definitely too London-centric - even if there are large numbers of Londoners struggling to get by.)

Yes I’d largely agree with that. Although if the rest of the UK levelled up then potentially the pull towards London might decrease a bit helping those who have roots there.

My focus would be on the parts of the country where there is a clear need to improve life chances rather than say in London which should be able to manage its own poverty issues without help from the UK government.

I’d also be wary of excusing crime just because someone is poor. My family was poor when I was growing up. We never turned to crime. It’s sometimes too easy to suggest that crime must follow poverty. I do have lots of sympathy where young people just can’t find work in depressed areas hence my focus on levelling up. Opportunities are far more present in the South East, plus all the supporting infrastructure.

[Mikey Brown]

Come on. You think we don’t excuse crime because people are rich too?

[paddy no 11]

Come on. You think we don’t excuse crime because people are rich too?

Yup - no previous offences, well yeah when you grow up priveleged you absolutely shouldn't

[Puja]

I’m a tad wary of the relative poverty measurement. Someone will always be poorer but there should be certain things that anyone in Britain should be guaranteed unless they choose to go off grid. The ability to get safe and affordable housing is one for example.
Nñnn

There is of course inequality in the south east as well as anywhere else. But I’d also argue that the UK is too London centric and if we are going to grow our economy, and if you want redistribution the it helps if there’s more to distribute in the first place, then getting a northern powerhouse established ( and for other parts of the UK) is pretty important. Too
Many parts of the UK are missing the industry which made them what they are today and we need to rebalance that.
That would be my focus, which would include transport, housing education and business development.

I don't mean relative poverty in any specific technical sense, just being poor, struggling to pay the bills, the rent, the mortgage, to get enough food to eat, with no sign of light at the end of the tunnel. Do you think this is a big driver (or the biggest, as I think) of the unrest? If not then what is?

(Agreed, regional economic differences should be reduced as much as possible. The UK is definitely too London-centric - even if there are large numbers of Londoners struggling to get by.)

Yes I’d largely agree with that. Although if the rest of the UK levelled up then potentially the pull towards London might decrease a bit helping those who have roots there.

My focus would be on the parts of the country where there is a clear need to improve life chances rather than say in London which should be able to manage its own poverty issues without help from the UK government.

I’d also be wary of excusing crime just because someone is poor. My family was poor when I was growing up. We never turned to crime. It’s sometimes too easy to suggest that crime must follow poverty. I do have lots of sympathy where young people just can’t find work in depressed areas hence my focus on levelling up. Opportunities are far more present in the South East, plus all the supporting infrastructure.

It's not "excusing crime just because someone is poor" because it's not about individual cases where it allows for survivorship bias fallacies. Your family didn't turn to crime because of particularly good morals or luck or particular circumstances or whatever reason, but that doesn't preclude a causal link between poverty and crime across statistically significant populations. Just cause you achieved it, doesn't mean that everyone in your situation could've.

As with so many social ills in this country, austerity was an accelerant. Shutting down the Sure Start centres feels like an act of cultural and societal vandalism.

Puja

[Stom]

I’m a tad wary of the relative poverty measurement. Someone will always be poorer but there should be certain things that anyone in Britain should be guaranteed unless they choose to go off grid. The ability to get safe and affordable housing is one for example.
Nñnn

There is of course inequality in the south east as well as anywhere else. But I’d also argue that the UK is too London centric and if we are going to grow our economy, and if you want redistribution the it helps if there’s more to distribute in the first place, then getting a northern powerhouse established ( and for other parts of the UK) is pretty important. Too
Many parts of the UK are missing the industry which made them what they are today and we need to rebalance that.
That would be my focus, which would include transport, housing education and business development.

I don't mean relative poverty in any specific technical sense, just being poor, struggling to pay the bills, the rent, the mortgage, to get enough food to eat, with no sign of light at the end of the tunnel. Do you think this is a big driver (or the biggest, as I think) of the unrest? If not then what is?

(Agreed, regional economic differences should be reduced as much as possible. The UK is definitely too London-centric - even if there are large numbers of Londoners struggling to get by.)

Yes I’d largely agree with that. Although if the rest of the UK levelled up then potentially the pull towards London might decrease a bit helping those who have roots there.

My focus would be on the parts of the country where there is a clear need to improve life chances rather than say in London which should be able to manage its own poverty issues without help from the UK government.

I’d also be wary of excusing crime just because someone is poor. My family was poor when I was growing up. We never turned to crime. It’s sometimes too easy to suggest that crime must follow poverty. I do have lots of sympathy where young people just can’t find work in depressed areas hence my focus on levelling up. Opportunities are far more present in the South East, plus all the supporting infrastructure.

There is a massive difference between poverty and inequality in the 60/70/80s and now, though. And a lot of it has to do with the visibility of that inequality. With social media, people see what others have or pretend to have so much more.

And when they have less than they had 15 years ago, they get agitated.

It’s understandable. It’s not excusable. But when violence is so high, you need to look at the causes.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I’m a tad wary of the relative poverty measurement. Someone will always be poorer but there should be certain things that anyone in Britain should be guaranteed unless they choose to go off grid. The ability to get safe and affordable housing is one for example.
Nñnn

There is of course inequality in the south east as well as anywhere else. But I’d also argue that the UK is too London centric and if we are going to grow our economy, and if you want redistribution the it helps if there’s more to distribute in the first place, then getting a northern powerhouse established ( and for other parts of the UK) is pretty important. Too
Many parts of the UK are missing the industry which made them what they are today and we need to rebalance that.
That would be my focus, which would include transport, housing education and business development.

I don't mean relative poverty in any specific technical sense, just being poor, struggling to pay the bills, the rent, the mortgage, to get enough food to eat, with no sign of light at the end of the tunnel. Do you think this is a big driver (or the biggest, as I think) of the unrest? If not then what is?

(Agreed, regional economic differences should be reduced as much as possible. The UK is definitely too London-centric - even if there are large numbers of Londoners struggling to get by.)

Yes I’d largely agree with that. Although if the rest of the UK levelled up then potentially the pull towards London might decrease a bit helping those who have roots there.

My focus would be on the parts of the country where there is a clear need to improve life chances rather than say in London which should be able to manage its own poverty issues without help from the UK government.

I’d also be wary of excusing crime just because someone is poor. My family was poor when I was growing up. We never turned to crime. It’s sometimes too easy to suggest that crime must follow poverty. I do have lots of sympathy where young people just can’t find work in depressed areas hence my focus on levelling up. Opportunities are far more present in the South East, plus all the supporting infrastructure.

But other than regional inequality, you don't see a problem with inequality?

Other than extreme cases - eg stealing to feed your starving family, which is certainly not what's happening here - I definitely don't see poverty as an excuse for crime. If a crime is committed then the law should take its course. But if poverty is a driver of crime we ought to end it to prevent crime from being committed.

[Sandydragon]

I don't mean relative poverty in any specific technical sense, just being poor, struggling to pay the bills, the rent, the mortgage, to get enough food to eat, with no sign of light at the end of the tunnel. Do you think this is a big driver (or the biggest, as I think) of the unrest? If not then what is?

(Agreed, regional economic differences should be reduced as much as possible. The UK is definitely too London-centric - even if there are large numbers of Londoners struggling to get by.)

Yes I’d largely agree with that. Although if the rest of the UK levelled up then potentially the pull towards London might decrease a bit helping those who have roots there.

My focus would be on the parts of the country where there is a clear need to improve life chances rather than say in London which should be able to manage its own poverty issues without help from the UK government.

I’d also be wary of excusing crime just because someone is poor. My family was poor when I was growing up. We never turned to crime. It’s sometimes too easy to suggest that crime must follow poverty. I do have lots of sympathy where young people just can’t find work in depressed areas hence my focus on levelling up. Opportunities are far more present in the South East, plus all the supporting infrastructure.

It's not "excusing crime just because someone is poor" because it's not about individual cases where it allows for survivorship bias fallacies. Your family didn't turn to crime because of particularly good morals or luck or particular circumstances or whatever reason, but that doesn't preclude a causal link between poverty and crime across statistically significant populations. Just cause you achieved it, doesn't mean that everyone in your situation could've.

As with so many social ills in this country, austerity was an accelerant. Shutting down the Sure Start centres feels like an act of cultural and societal vandalism.

Puja

Maybe but just being poor isn’t by itself an excuse for crime. Many who are poor also live in areas with significant gang culture for example which pushes crime rates up.

I agree about sure start. There was also a hollowing out of police budgets and other contributing services, mental health for example, which was a problem.

But fundamentally my point below is that I’d prefer to invest at a national level in deprived regions where there are fewer opportunities than London and the south east where there are plenty. Take all the problems of a council estate in London and add a total lack of jobs or transport to get to jobs in many de industrialised areas. For the country and for the people living in these areas it makes sense to invest and grow the overall economy.

[Sandydragon]

I don't mean relative poverty in any specific technical sense, just being poor, struggling to pay the bills, the rent, the mortgage, to get enough food to eat, with no sign of light at the end of the tunnel. Do you think this is a big driver (or the biggest, as I think) of the unrest? If not then what is?

(Agreed, regional economic differences should be reduced as much as possible. The UK is definitely too London-centric - even if there are large numbers of Londoners struggling to get by.)

Yes I’d largely agree with that. Although if the rest of the UK levelled up then potentially the pull towards London might decrease a bit helping those who have roots there.

My focus would be on the parts of the country where there is a clear need to improve life chances rather than say in London which should be able to manage its own poverty issues without help from the UK government.

I’d also be wary of excusing crime just because someone is poor. My family was poor when I was growing up. We never turned to crime. It’s sometimes too easy to suggest that crime must follow poverty. I do have lots of sympathy where young people just can’t find work in depressed areas hence my focus on levelling up. Opportunities are far more present in the South East, plus all the supporting infrastructure.

But other than regional inequality, you don't see a problem with inequality?

Other than extreme cases - eg stealing to feed your starving family, which is certainly not what's happening here - I definitely don't see poverty as an excuse for crime. If a crime is committed then the law should take its course. But if poverty is a driver of crime we ought to end it to prevent crime from being committed.

Modern societies are unequal. The degree will differ but I’m less concerned by inequality as a concept than you are. I’m all for creating an environment where people can better themselves, which requires jobs, transport , housing etc.

[Stom]

A switch to remote work wherever possible would help as people would move away from London.

And as I was just in London… the city really needs people to move away, way too many there, especially cars.

[Puja]

Yes I’d largely agree with that. Although if the rest of the UK levelled up then potentially the pull towards London might decrease a bit helping those who have roots there.

My focus would be on the parts of the country where there is a clear need to improve life chances rather than say in London which should be able to manage its own poverty issues without help from the UK government.

I’d also be wary of excusing crime just because someone is poor. My family was poor when I was growing up. We never turned to crime. It’s sometimes too easy to suggest that crime must follow poverty. I do have lots of sympathy where young people just can’t find work in depressed areas hence my focus on levelling up. Opportunities are far more present in the South East, plus all the supporting infrastructure.

But other than regional inequality, you don't see a problem with inequality?

Other than extreme cases - eg stealing to feed your starving family, which is certainly not what's happening here - I definitely don't see poverty as an excuse for crime. If a crime is committed then the law should take its course. But if poverty is a driver of crime we ought to end it to prevent crime from being committed.

Modern societies are unequal. The degree will differ but I’m less concerned by inequality as a concept than you are. I’m all for creating an environment where people can better themselves, which requires jobs, transport , housing etc.

I can respect that position (while not agreeing with it), but I think there's got to be an acknowledgement of the current context. 50% of the people in the UK have just 9% of the wealth, as compared to the top 0.1% who have 10%. There are 2,800 regularly used foodbanks. Things are currently beyond, "Some people have more than you; learn to deal with it."

Puja

[Stom]

But other than regional inequality, you don't see a problem with inequality?

Other than extreme cases - eg stealing to feed your starving family, which is certainly not what's happening here - I definitely don't see poverty as an excuse for crime. If a crime is committed then the law should take its course. But if poverty is a driver of crime we ought to end it to prevent crime from being committed.

Modern societies are unequal. The degree will differ but I’m less concerned by inequality as a concept than you are. I’m all for creating an environment where people can better themselves, which requires jobs, transport , housing etc.

I can respect that position (while not agreeing with it), but I think there's got to be an acknowledgement of the current context. 50% of the people in the UK have just 9% of the wealth, as compared to the top 0.1% who have 10%. There are 2,800 regularly used foodbanks. Things are currently beyond, "Some people have more than you; learn to deal with it."

Puja

The thing is: the idea that "some people have more than you, so work your arse off and get up there" just does not work anymore, as most of those people just do not have the opportunities.

1. So move.

And with rents how they are, how can they afford to move away from their support networks?

2. So get a job as a fruit picker, they get accommodation.

And have you seen the stipulations? You basically decide to have no life for half a year to make enough money to not starve for the next 6 months. You still don't have enough to do point 1.

3. Huff, puff, Starmer's an idiot, they're already putting up taxes, they're raiding my pension.

[Mikey Brown]

Yep. It has quite demonstrably come at the cost of collapsing living standards for a huge portion of people. Middle class does not mean what it did 20 years ago.

It’s a shame that moaning about capitalism and corporate greed has become such a meaningless cliche. On the whole it doesn’t seem to matter if most people want it addressed, because they’re not the ones with influence.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Yes I’d largely agree with that. Although if the rest of the UK levelled up then potentially the pull towards London might decrease a bit helping those who have roots there.

My focus would be on the parts of the country where there is a clear need to improve life chances rather than say in London which should be able to manage its own poverty issues without help from the UK government.

I’d also be wary of excusing crime just because someone is poor. My family was poor when I was growing up. We never turned to crime. It’s sometimes too easy to suggest that crime must follow poverty. I do have lots of sympathy where young people just can’t find work in depressed areas hence my focus on levelling up. Opportunities are far more present in the South East, plus all the supporting infrastructure.

But other than regional inequality, you don't see a problem with inequality?

Other than extreme cases - eg stealing to feed your starving family, which is certainly not what's happening here - I definitely don't see poverty as an excuse for crime. If a crime is committed then the law should take its course. But if poverty is a driver of crime we ought to end it to prevent crime from being committed.

Modern societies are unequal. The degree will differ but I’m less concerned by inequality as a concept than you are. I’m all for creating an environment where people can better themselves, which requires jobs, transport , housing etc.

Re inequality as a concept, I won't get into a big discussion on that but please, if you haven't already done so, read The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Picket, for how, in developed countries, inequality (and not average wealth) is a big driver of violence, imprisonment, drug abuse, mental illness, obesity, teenage pregnancy, and, negatively, on life expectancy, infant mortality, trust, educational attainment and social mobility (ie an environment where people can better themselves, as you put it ).

But you agree that poverty is a big driver of support for the far right and the current riots. So (leaving aside arguments for reducing inequality) we should try to reduce poverty. My argument is this:

There are two broad methods for reducing poverty: 1) increase the size of the economy so that we all get more wealthy, and 2) redistribute (some of) the wealth that we have from the rich to the poor.

1) Growth. We're already trying to do this, the Tories were trying to do this, everyone always tries to do this. Of course we should do our best to grow the economy (without destroying the planet's capacity to support human life). But who has any confidence the Labour will do a significantly better job than the Tories (using the same fiscal rules)? Even if they are better at it, or luckier, the increase in GDP will take a long time to be noticed by the poor. In the meantime support for the far right will grow.

2) Redistribution. The government can increase this today. To whatever degree they want. Whether it's through more progressive income taxes and benefits, a wealth tax, reduction in VAT, or more indirectly by increasing local government budgets, educational and health spending, consumer price controls etc this can begin to make a difference the moment the button is pressed. This can improve the life of the poor quite quickly making them less susceptible to the bullshit easy answers and scapegoats of the far right.
(Additionally, making the poorest more wealthy will boost the economy because the poor are more likely to spend any extra money they have whereas the rich are more likely to save it.)

Therefore we should redistribute more.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... ge-england

A 15-year-old boy has become the first person to be charged with riot over the recent disorder that swept towns and cities across England.

Almost all those involved have so far been charged with violent disorder, which carries a shorter maximum sentence than the offence of rioting. On Wednesday a judge, the recorder of Hull, suggested that prosecutors should consider the riot charge for people alleged to have played a central role in the disorder.

On Thursday the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said that a 15-year-old boy had been charged with riot after disorder in Sunderland. It said more riot charge charges would follow.

[Puja]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... iot-courts

I'm not sure of the wisdom of this. Yes, it's very satisfying being a law-abiding non-racist non-dickhead seeing hateful arseholes getting a swift comeuppance, but are these prison sentences going to mend the fabric of the UK? These people are mostly in this position because they believe conspiracy theories and have become convinced that the establishment (apart from that nice Mr Farage who is a man of the people) is out to get them and anyone else who speaks "common sense" and our answer is to give them more fuel for their persecution complexes? Even more so given that the current state of our prison system means other criminals are being released early - I can just see the Daily Express headlines now when some dark skinned fellow reoffends after being let out early. Or, more likely, the twitter influencers talking about "real criminals on the streets while people are jailed just for being angry about child murderers".

I don't know what the answer is to deprogramming these people, but I'm fairly certain that throwing the book at them on its own is not going to do the job. I hope to gods we've got some kind of rehabilitation scheme in the works, cause otherwise this lot are just going to come out of jail and be an even bigger problem.

Puja

[Puja]

Although, on the other hand: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php? ... 1358303768

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... iot-courts

I'm not sure of the wisdom of this. Yes, it's very satisfying being a law-abiding non-racist non-dickhead seeing hateful arseholes getting a swift comeuppance, but are these prison sentences going to mend the fabric of the UK? These people are mostly in this position because they believe conspiracy theories and have become convinced that the establishment (apart from that nice Mr Farage who is a man of the people) is out to get them and anyone else who speaks "common sense" and our answer is to give them more fuel for their persecution complexes? Even more so given that the current state of our prison system means other criminals are being released early - I can just see the Daily Express headlines now when some dark skinned fellow reoffends after being let out early. Or, more likely, the twitter influencers talking about "real criminals on the streets while people are jailed just for being angry about child murderers".

I don't know what the answer is to deprogramming these people, but I'm fairly certain that throwing the book at them on its own is not going to do the job. I hope to gods we've got some kind of rehabilitation scheme in the works, cause otherwise this lot are just going to come out of jail and be an even bigger problem.

Puja

I doubt that Reeves will come up the funding for anything like this. Obviously, not rehabilitating is much more expensive in the long run but there's not much sign of Labour deviating from Tory thinking.

I guess we'll see in the budget if justice is getting any extra cash.

[Sandydragon]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... iot-courts

I'm not sure of the wisdom of this. Yes, it's very satisfying being a law-abiding non-racist non-dickhead seeing hateful arseholes getting a swift comeuppance, but are these prison sentences going to mend the fabric of the UK? These people are mostly in this position because they believe conspiracy theories and have become convinced that the establishment (apart from that nice Mr Farage who is a man of the people) is out to get them and anyone else who speaks "common sense" and our answer is to give them more fuel for their persecution complexes? Even more so given that the current state of our prison system means other criminals are being released early - I can just see the Daily Express headlines now when some dark skinned fellow reoffends after being let out early. Or, more likely, the twitter influencers talking about "real criminals on the streets while people are jailed just for being angry about child murderers".

I don't know what the answer is to deprogramming these people, but I'm fairly certain that throwing the book at them on its own is not going to do the job. I hope to gods we've got some kind of rehabilitation scheme in the works, cause otherwise this lot are just going to come out of jail and be an even bigger problem.

Puja

I doubt that Reeves will come up the funding for anything like this. Obviously, not rehabilitating is much more expensive in the long run but there's not much sign of Labour deviating from Tory thinking.

I guess we'll see in the budget if justice is getting any extra cash.

Deradicalisation, for want of a better term takes a long time and isn’t an exact science, based on experience elsewhere. The swift sentencing is all about putting off potential rioters and taking dickheads off the streets now. This won’t solve underlying problems and what shouldn’t happen is that they are ignored because of the violence.

[Sandydragon]

But other than regional inequality, you don't see a problem with inequality?

Other than extreme cases - eg stealing to feed your starving family, which is certainly not what's happening here - I definitely don't see poverty as an excuse for crime. If a crime is committed then the law should take its course. But if poverty is a driver of crime we ought to end it to prevent crime from being committed.

Modern societies are unequal. The degree will differ but I’m less concerned by inequality as a concept than you are. I’m all for creating an environment where people can better themselves, which requires jobs, transport , housing etc.

Re inequality as a concept, I won't get into a big discussion on that but please, if you haven't already done so, read The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Picket, for how, in developed countries, inequality (and not average wealth) is a big driver of violence, imprisonment, drug abuse, mental illness, obesity, teenage pregnancy, and, negatively, on life expectancy, infant mortality, trust, educational attainment and social mobility (ie an environment where people can better themselves, as you put it ).

But you agree that poverty is a big driver of support for the far right and the current riots. So (leaving aside arguments for reducing inequality) we should try to reduce poverty. My argument is this:

There are two broad methods for reducing poverty: 1) increase the size of the economy so that we all get more wealthy, and 2) redistribute (some of) the wealth that we have from the rich to the poor.

1) Growth. We're already trying to do this, the Tories were trying to do this, everyone always tries to do this. Of course we should do our best to grow the economy (without destroying the planet's capacity to support human life). But who has any confidence the Labour will do a significantly better job than the Tories (using the same fiscal rules)? Even if they are better at it, or luckier, the increase in GDP will take a long time to be noticed by the poor. In the meantime support for the far right will grow.

2) Redistribution. The government can increase this today. To whatever degree they want. Whether it's through more progressive income taxes and benefits, a wealth tax, reduction in VAT, or more indirectly by increasing local government budgets, educational and health spending, consumer price controls etc this can begin to make a difference the moment the button is pressed. This can improve the life of the poor quite quickly making them less susceptible to the bullshit easy answers and scapegoats of the far right.
(Additionally, making the poorest more wealthy will boost the economy because the poor are more likely to spend any extra money they have whereas the rich are more likely to save it.)

Therefore we should redistribute more.

And you can reduce property by developing jobs and opportunities, which is why the focus should be on levelling up.

[morepork]

Modern societies are unequal. The degree will differ but I’m less concerned by inequality as a concept than you are. I’m all for creating an environment where people can better themselves, which requires jobs, transport , housing etc.

Re inequality as a concept, I won't get into a big discussion on that but please, if you haven't already done so, read The Spirit Level by Wilkinson and Picket, for how, in developed countries, inequality (and not average wealth) is a big driver of violence, imprisonment, drug abuse, mental illness, obesity, teenage pregnancy, and, negatively, on life expectancy, infant mortality, trust, educational attainment and social mobility (ie an environment where people can better themselves, as you put it ).

But you agree that poverty is a big driver of support for the far right and the current riots. So (leaving aside arguments for reducing inequality) we should try to reduce poverty. My argument is this:

There are two broad methods for reducing poverty: 1) increase the size of the economy so that we all get more wealthy, and 2) redistribute (some of) the wealth that we have from the rich to the poor.

1) Growth. We're already trying to do this, the Tories were trying to do this, everyone always tries to do this. Of course we should do our best to grow the economy (without destroying the planet's capacity to support human life). But who has any confidence the Labour will do a significantly better job than the Tories (using the same fiscal rules)? Even if they are better at it, or luckier, the increase in GDP will take a long time to be noticed by the poor. In the meantime support for the far right will grow.

2) Redistribution. The government can increase this today. To whatever degree they want. Whether it's through more progressive income taxes and benefits, a wealth tax, reduction in VAT, or more indirectly by increasing local government budgets, educational and health spending, consumer price controls etc this can begin to make a difference the moment the button is pressed. This can improve the life of the poor quite quickly making them less susceptible to the bullshit easy answers and scapegoats of the far right.
(Additionally, making the poorest more wealthy will boost the economy because the poor are more likely to spend any extra money they have whereas the rich are more likely to save it.)

Therefore we should redistribute more.

And you can reduce property by developing jobs and opportunities, which is why the focus should be on levelling up.

Level up how exactly? Inequality restricts opportunities to do so for the many, so what then? Secure a life long mortgage level of tuition debt? Marry into wealth? "Developing jobs and opportunities" is a hollow platitude. How do we promote real talent in the absence of a leg up on the social ladder? You are flogging a dead dodo brother.