The consequences of throwing stones – and this time I really mean it
Apologies to Shane, Neil and Ian: you all commented on a post I wrote at Sydney airport on Wednesday afternoon which I then comprehensively rewrote when I got to Bangkok nine hours later. The original post was called ‘the consequences of throwing stones’ and contrasted the punishment being meted out to rioters and looters with the way those who behaved irresponsibly in the financial sector have got away Scot-free. I don’t sleep well on planes and at some point in the first leg of my journey back to London I decided the post was trite. But now, back in England, I find myself wanting to make the point more strongly. But this time in the form of an urgent challenge to the Prime Minister.
My conviction was renewed by two pieces on the BBC web-site. The first describes the sixteen month prison sentence for Thomas Downey, who helped himself to doughnuts from an already looted Krispy Kreme shop in Manchester. From his photograph and his record, Mr Downey is not, I think, the kind of person I would like to have as a friend or even sit next to on a bus. But, even so, banging him up for sixteen months for grabbing a box of doughnuts from a vandalised shop when he was drunk is surely unlikely to: (a) do him any good; (b) be a wise use of public money; or (c) appear to most people as a proportionate punishment.
The second story explores the profound and still unfolding consequences of the financial turmoil unleashed in the credit crunch. With stock markets crashing again yesterday (and it looks bad today) no one knows where all this will end, but we already know that hundreds of millions of people across the developed world will suffer hardship and insecurity and that many will never fully recover from the effects.
No one can argue that all this came about just because of the behaviour of bankers and speculators. I have been arguing since even before the crunch that the deeper cause lies in the fundamental and growing mismatch between public expectations of personal affluence and public services and what the state and market are able to provide in the absence of a strong civil society. But equally, there is no question that the finance sector bears substantial responsibility because of how it chose to make as much money as possible despite the risks and because it was a strong voice advocating the economic and policy framework which collapsed in 2008. Furthermore, there continue to be parts of the sector which not only make money out of adversity but also have an interest in adding to the turmoil (this is one reason why four European countries recently banned short selling).
I could stop here, simply highlighting the way rich and powerful people can cause great misery and get away with it and poor and hopeless people can be severely punished for minor misdemeanours, but we need to get past impotent rage. The contrast between what happened to Thomas Downey and the impunity of the bankers and speculators is at one level entirely rational. Downey was personally responsible for committing a crime, the finance guys are collectively responsible for making a killing in a system which has created, and is still exacerbating, a crisis. Some people do terrible things which aren’t against the law; other people do trivial things which are. The state can only punish the law breakers. It’s just the way things are.
But borne on the wind of turmoil and trouble can be heard the swirling murmur of contested moral equivalences. The Government is close to big finance and it made an explicit policy decision to put pressure on the judiciary to hand out longer sentences to all those involved in the riots, so it can’t simply shrug its shoulders if people find this imbalance of consequences ugly and unjust.
The Big Society is in part a way of addressing the limits of the state and market in meeting social need. And for this I have often commended it. But to have credibility, the Big Society must also be about a basic sense of justice, which is essential to social cohesion and morale. Fred Goodwin and thousands more like him are still rich and still making money out of decisions which have had a profoundly damaging impact on innocent people. Thomas Downey and hundreds like him, more guilty of stupidity and impulsive greed than malice, are starting prison sentences which could blight their lives. There may be nothing that can be done about this, but political leadership has sometimes to be about helping us understand why things seem unfair and describing ideas and principles which offer a better foundation for society.
A friend of my fifteen year old son got arrested after the rioting. He didn’t attack or hurt anyone physically but he was involved in the looting. It is clear that the consequences for him as a working class kid are going to be dire. My son said to me last night ’my mate was stupid and he knows it but he is going to lose everything. Why is it when rich people screw up they always seem to get away with it?’ As he spoke I sensed a deep and lasting impression is being made on him about the way things are and how unlikely it is that ‘the system’, as he sees it, will ever change.
If David Cameron is to return to the promise of his early years as Tory leader and provide a vision which unites, heals and invigorates society then he needs to balance the punitive rhetoric of the last few days. He needs to say something which touches and unlocks this hardening sense of injustice and cynical resignation. He needs to do it powerfully and he needs to do it soon.
Comments
13 Comments on The consequences of throwing stones – and this time I really mean it
-
Philip Dundas on
Fri, 19th Aug 2011 10:11 am
-
Dan Stucke on
Fri, 19th Aug 2011 10:15 am
-
Tom Brookes on
Fri, 19th Aug 2011 1:53 pm
-
Ian Christie on
Fri, 19th Aug 2011 3:05 pm
-
Neil McNaughton on
Fri, 19th Aug 2011 5:12 pm
-
‘Contested moral equivalences’ « Pabs on
Fri, 19th Aug 2011 7:39 pm
-
esp on
Fri, 19th Aug 2011 9:49 pm
-
Carl Allen on
Fri, 19th Aug 2011 10:36 pm
-
RICHARD ASPA on
Mon, 22nd Aug 2011 2:17 pm
-
EO on
Mon, 22nd Aug 2011 5:27 pm
-
matthew taylor on
Mon, 22nd Aug 2011 5:49 pm
-
Will Sheward on
Tue, 23rd Aug 2011 11:49 am
-
Graham Rawlinson on
Wed, 24th Aug 2011 5:40 pm
I appreciate what you say Matthew, but it’s not even about whether there is a distinction between punishments. The young have always known that there are double standards when it comes to who makes the rules and therefore who exacts the punishments. What’s scary is that we fail to address what we’ve done to people to make them behave like this. It’s not just stupidity but desperation and until we face that we are all – not just the bankers – are responsible for this, however tacitly, we’ll never find a solution. This has made me come clean about my own shady past for the first time in 25 years….http://tiny.cc/3c2l8
I couldn’t agree more. And to keep this reply short and sweet. Sadly we know he won’t do anything to remove injustice and even up society. What Conservative government ever has?
You’re absolutely right Matthew, it’s an absurd double standard; & one which will most likely exist as long as there are social divisions along class lines.
It’s this idea though that ‘the system’ cannot change, like it looks only forward and anything done is done which irks me – where’s our national optimism that we can do better, do anything? But then; what’s our motivation? What’s the light at the end of the tunnel? Maybe that’s what’s missing. The motivations and manifestations of the Big Society are respectively too questionable and invisible to provide an overarching narrative for what Britain is trying to become. Is it time for something new & improved?
Depending on your sources and outlook the world can look startlingly optimistic or startlingly doomed on a day to day basis; in the tribal up & down world of the neoliberal free market I sometimes feel bipolar. What will the world look like in 50 years? Tracking enough trends & it could be a tribal divide between haves & have-nots, a world where corporatocracies and bureaucracy rule megacities, one where sustainable communities peacefully coexist, or a world where we’ve all nuked each other for food & water… of these & many alternatives I know what I, and most people, would really prefer. So how do we get there? Maybe that’s where the enlightenment has really stalled – in overall vision for human progress.
Capitalism could be made to work for the good of the people of the world, but the problem is that it must be forced to do so, & then it wouldn’t be capitalism; though it’s foundations of industrial production, mass transit & organisation could certainly become the foundation of a reworked social system designed around provision and personal fulfilment. Though I don’t see how that holds true for the financial system, it’s clearly riddled with cracks and is inherently unstable. Bankers running national economies is like signing over power of attorney to Raoul Duke & Dr. Gonzo, you just shouldn’t do it – and we’ve seen the results far too many times. Couldn’t we just… scrap most of it? Stocks and shares and derivatives of hedge fund insurance… if it takes a Harvard mathematics/physics graduate to explain how some of these formulae work to stockbrockers & traders then it’s clearly too convoluted and riddiculous – and mostly theoretical models on making something from nothing or predicting the future; which is a gross oversimplification; but an essential part of economics – dressed up in terminology – is guesswork. The thing is, guesswork ain’t good enough when the higher echelons of economics start effecting people’s lives.
I don’t know entirely what I’m driving at, I just got off a flight myself, but it does say speak your mind – & I firmly believe the world must change, significantly and soon.
Thanks Matthew.
Some of the disproportionality in sentencing will be corrected through appeals – an expensive and laborious way of getting it more or less right in the end. The wider issue remains: what state will the convicted looters and rioters be in when they finish their sentences? They need to undergo restorative justice programmes, and in most cases get taught some skills for employability, above all literacy and communications. There is also a desperate need for programmes in England for promoting empathy, a quality in short supply during the riots. The Canadian scheme ROOTS OF EMPATHY is well worth investigating by RSA and Coalition/Labour. It has programmes in N Ireland and Scotland and surely ought to be tried out in England’s cities.
As for the undeserving rich: all that has happened so far is that the PM and several thoughtful right-wing pundits have made the link between rewards for failure at the top in finance and the shameless looting on the streets by the unemployable poor. There is no sign that any sanctions are to be put in place to knock some moral sense into the ‘feral elites’, and this is a massive gap in the Coalition’s response.
But perhaps most serious of all is the continuing absence of any coherent strategy about Big Society and Sustainable, Just Economy. The PM has yet to offer any explanation of how and why so many parts of society were ‘broken’ over many decades (during which the Tories were very often in power); and he has yet to offer any optimistic and clear vision of how the BS will be developed in the light of that explanation. The deep problem for the Coalition is that the Big Society does not fit with a neoliberal economic system based on hardcore individualism, and indeed has been undermined by neoliberal economics over 30 years. ‘Red Tories’ (and there are precious few of them) and Blue Labour get the point, but it is far from clear that the Coalition does.
Matthew, these are all similar thoughts to the ones I have been having. I can’t remember whether I commented before, but it strikes me that CEO’s who pay themselves absurd salaries and bonuses, tax evaders and avoiders, MPs who have cheated on their expenses, short sellers in the City…..and rioters, are all looters.
But, lest we think this kind of thing is a result of our modern times, I suggest you google ‘Halifax, Nova Scotia riots 1945′ and you will see that looting, by ordinary civilians, can occur in any situation where the forces of law and order are absent or have lost control. I think we need to worry more about the concerted action by gang members and other criminals that about the casual looting that took place.
That said, I’m afraid I do agree with exemplary sentences even for casual looters. They are acomplices to a much more serious series of crimes than mere theft. Looting a packet of chewing gum is a greater crime than shoplifting a packet of chewing gum. The riots and looting were traumatic. people feared that things were spinning out of control for a few days. They were extremely serious, unprecedented events which cannot be allowed to be repeated. Those who casually looted compounded the problem and there must be deterrence against similar activity in the future. Of course, those who instigated riot, arson, damage and looting should suffer the longer sentences, but all those who took part have to acept their responsibility. The two guys who receibed four years for trying to incite more riots deserved such a sentence. They were threatening an act of war against their own society.
But, returning to your point about one rule for the rich….etc. I couldn’t agree more
[...] Matthew Taylor The Consequences of Throwing Stones post sums up the past week’s fight back from moral degradation extremely [...]
Matthew, I am so pleased that you have woken up. Cameron will do nothing – because he doesn’t understand and will never understand. In my book that equals a lack of education.
Now, let’s stop colluding with this bunch of idiots in government. Let’s stop appeasing. Let’s stop saying “it was the least bad option”.
Let’s choose the best for this country’s children – all of them, not just the children of the most powerful 2%.
But we need to stop whispering and start shouting and acting.
Cameron and second chance Coulson.
Cameron and no chance looters with their innocent families.
That is a setting for genuine violence.
I agree with Matthew’s comments and add the following:
It’s outragious that the Gov is thinking about reducing the 50% tax. It should be progressively increased, which would be in accord with a just society. However, the income level at which 50% tax starts should be increased.
This is an opportunity for the Labour Party, progressives and the religious leaders of all persuasions to question the morality of our society where there is such gross and unfair distribution of wealth. Successful individuals should have the humility to accept they had no say in the allocation of the genes they were born with. Their success was pre-ordained at birth.
How can the UK support an predicated population of 80 million? Even if economically possible, it would destroy our amenities and the pleasure we derive from them. The social consequences would be dire.
We should have a public debate about reducing the size of our population. To achieve that family sizes should be limited to a maximum of two or three children. The fickle and irresponsible should be encouraged to be sterilised by financial inducements.
Every able person should have a job, if necessary funded by Gov. We should acknowledge that we are all dependent upon each other for the preservation of ‘a good life’.
The virtues of living within one’s means applies to both State and individuals.
All good points Matthew yet the Tories have no intention of more evenly distributing wealth or opportunities: its simply not in their interest. The rich will go on getting richer and the poor poorer, that’s how capitalism works – creating a market in which people with lots of money will be prepared to pay over the odds – whether that’s education, health or a fast car. Sure its a double standard, bankers versus rioters and sentencing but that’s what power, money and influence buys you. This government and the last one were in the pockets of the bankers. If you want to expose the double standard there needs to be an RSA campaign that engages ordinary people on a larger scale… lets be brave, be bold, be courageous…
Thanks for these comments folks. Philip’s Facebook note is really brilliant. Interestngly, I have read and been sent two very good examples of efffective strategies to stop disaffection turning into gang violence. They both combine good intelligence with interventions to offer young people alternatives http://ceasefirechicago.org/ and http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/21/glasgow-gangs-fade-away-campaign
So, your original post was comparing the punishments given to those who broke the law to the lack of punishment (and presumably you mean custodial sentences and/or fines) given to those who didn’t break the law?
Apples and Oranges Matthew.
The looters broke the law. The bankers (boo hiss!) were trying to make money within the boundaries of the law. The decisions they took may have been stupid and the laws governing the financial industry may have been poorly drafted but as far as I’m aware the crime of stupidity isn’t on the books and bad laws get dealt with by electorates turfing out of office the politicians who made them, and their advisors.
Reward and punishment in the business sector comes (or should come) in the form of profit for success and bankruptcy for failure, a system which correctly allocates rewards and punishments to the shareholders who are ultimately responsible for the legal but commercially stupid commercial actions of the businesses they own.
That an equally profligate Government choose not to allow the market mechanism to operate in this way is a matter of great regret, not least because failing to do so provides far too many opportunities for hand-wringing articles lamenting the unfairness of it all.
Someone half dead from a beating cannot be kicked again on the basis that he is half dead already. Stealing from a half looted shop is not relevant, It is still theft and indeed maybe worse because the shop has been half looted. It is still the poor shopkeepers property. I see no value in linking that with what others do, in the financial sector, and getting away with it. Standards are standards, surely,that is what my mum taught me and I still think it applies even in this post modern world of relativities.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.