Smack those kids!?

On Tuesday morning, my first day back at work, which also meant back to listening to the radio on my commute, I first heard about the London riots. My first thoughts were bewilderment. I didn't know about the police shooting, it had bypassed me as it only can bypass someone who forgets to switch on TV and radio for a full weekend. My first question was "Why?" Yet all there was was people talking about "those kids" how they weren't disciplined enough and they knew no boundaries. There was no coverage of the motifs of the perpetrators, as if they had relinquished their right to voice their views, when really, if you want to tackle this violence it kind of helps to understand why those kids went off the rails. You know, tackling it at the root rather than letting it escalate even further?

It was only this morning that I had a first glimpse of how the young people saw this whole thing. From their words (selective as they may be) it was clear that a) they knew they were doing something wrong b) they didn't think there were any real consequences to their behaviour, c) they could afford the stuff but why pay if they can loot and d) when asked if someone robbed their house and set it on fire what they would think it was clear that this was a totally different story to them.

To me, this demonstrates a few things. First up is an unawareness that the destruction actually harms anyone in any serious way. It's a laugh. It's a bit of fun. The destruction to them doesn't harm anyone they care about and there was no moral barrier to stealing, as it was directed against shops that are big chains and can afford a bit of damage or are insured. Those young people didn't care about what and whom they were damaging. They didn't empathise with the shopowners and other people who were damaged as a consequence of their action.

Secondly, there is the lack of consequences of their actions that are serious enough to act as a deterrent. A criminal record? So what. Prison? It won't be for long. There is no sense that a criminal record may be an obstacle in life. Thinking back, the stuff that deterred me as a youngster were much more to do with worry how I would look in the eyes of my family, neighbours, teachers, and other role models..

Thirdly, underlying is an us and them mentality which in turn got really drummed in through the coverage in the media: Those kids that know no boundaries, they are the minority, we are respectable citizens, our society is under threat by the action of criminal youngsters. Yet really, these young people are our society, as much as you and I are. Underlying this behaviour is an already existing perception of not being part of society, of now owing anything. Disenfranchised young people who have little opportunities to succeed in life, who don't see that in working together and behaving in ways that makes for good living together reaps benefits and is worthwhile pursuing. Their only creed is to their gang, to the cool peer group, fuelled by dare devil behaviour (which in itself is a part of being a young male and perfectly normal).

So what causes this perspective? There are a few reasons that I would suggest. First of all, it's the makeup of our society. While we live in a rich country, the difference between the richest and the poorest is growing ever more, and with it, as research has shown, the rates of violence, crime and antisocial behaviour. A society that is perceived as unjust will create members who do not feel the need to respect the society as a whole. Instead, they will only respect those in their stratum/class/gang - you pick the word (The Guardian's Nina Power has put this part of my point much more eloquently than I could ever do).

The call has been loud that these kids need discipline, smacking, authority figurest that show them boundaries and consequences. But you know what? I think that will be futile because they know they are doing something wrong, they know the boundaries and chose to overstep them! Tough parenting has been called for and parents have been blamed. I agree and I disagree: Yes, poor parenting contributes and allows for children to rebel in such a way and neglectful parenting (i.e. not knowing where your child is or not caring much or worse of course) doesn't help. But discipline and smacking are not going to turn bad kids into good kids. Since when has violence (smacking is violence) ever convinced a child to be good? All it does is to force into submisson - temporarily usually. The same goes with a criminal record or some time spent in prison. When a person has chosen to do the wrong thing knowing the consequences, disciplining or penalising them will have little success.

If the young people involved in the riots demonstrate a lack of respect and empathy for those they have damaged, wouldn't it be a better approach to show our kids respect and empathy, to teach them by example but also by explaining to them why respectful behaviour is important? Explaining to them that people have feelings and we need to be mindful of these feelings? Explaining about property and the real cost of making things, how it's not about just the monetary value but the resources, time and effort that go into making things, which therefore need to be respected? Our aim needs to be to raise children who can distinguish between good and bad AND make the right choice.

What's more I understand that the young people have little regard for material items or the people whose property they damaged. We live in a society where everything is available cheeply and where we are detached from many people (and the more detached you are, the less you care). As one of the youngsters said - he could afford to buy the stuff he stole, but why pay if you can get it for free? In a throwaway consumer society it is easier to steal because material objects don't have real value any more. In a society where only your peer group matters, where you have lost connections to a range of different people, where the only role models are in your peer group or on the x-factor, people's feeling also have no value anymore.

So I'll be radical and suggest to show and teach our kids to make things from scratch. Instil a sense of value, purpose, skill, creativity and effort. And I dare you show me one young person who has been raised with respect, empathy and learned how to make things to set those things on fire. And get that inequality in this country sorted - because even I, well adjusted, peaceloving treehugger that I am, feel rather angry seeing the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Angry enough to imagine throwing a stone into a Mercedes Benz or an iPad.

It's not cutting it

Admittedly, I'm not exactly on top of all the news at the moment. So when the big cuts were announced I neither managed to look in depth at the emergency budget nor in depth at the recently announced budget (though it's still on my to do list). It was a bit of a surreal experience, this maternity leave bubble. Everybody talking about cuts, and all that I feel of it was debates on the radio. Of course I knew that the voluntary sector would be hit hard, but how exactly, and when, seemed a bit more elusive.

Now however, I've experienced cuts even in my little bubble, and without particularly looking out for them. I'm not surprised but still very disappointed. Services for Refugees and Asylum Seekers were first to go - the housing contract Glasgow City Council held wasn't renewed, so rather a lot of support services are on the way out. This is hitting refugees hard - as well as everyone working in the sector. The cuts affect support for the most vulnerable, support for English language tuition and thus affects integration.

In another area, I tried to apply to volunteer as a breastfeeding peer supporter. However, the programme is stalled because the NHS has withdrawn their training element from the programme. So there you have a service which is actually all big societyish with volunteers doing the work, but the necessary training to enable them to do a good job has been cut. Again, it hits the vulnerable in our society, but also society as a whole because low breastfeeding rates are linked with poorer health in later life, increased risk of obesity and general health inequalities. It's short sighted and will in fact incur a delayed cost.

I have strong views on the suggested privatisation of forests and libraries. Again, I think it's the wrong approach. And the list goes on of course.
This is not to say that I'm all opposed to cuts, or opposed to all cuts. Muddling Along Mummy stirred up a bit of a debate on those who seem to think unrealistically that we can just not have any cuts at all.

However, I think we need to start with the right vision and not cut where it's quick and easy, but which will incur additional costs in the future.
So how about we look at what is costing the country money?

1. Crime. Crime is expensive because of the justice system, more so than the actual damage (though that counts too), and it also costs our society morally (in the sense that people feel insecure and don't use public spaces - a real detrimental effect on communities). Prison doesn't get rid of crime. I'm not suggesting that prison is wrong, just that it doesn't actually do anything to remediate the problem, however is important to show there are consequences to wrong behaviour.

2. Addictions. And I include tobacco and alcohol in this - alcohol in particular costs us an awful lot of money. The damage caused by people who are drunk, the violence caused by drink both outside and in the home, the consequences addictions have on the children of addicts.

3. Poor health that is caused by lifestyle choices. Most of us know what is good and bad to eat, yet bad food is cheap and convenient and it takes knowledge, real effort and conviction to make healthy choices.

4. Unemployment/worklessness.

All of these are linked to inequalities though it's a chicken and egg situation. Social inequality causes higher crime rates, poorer health and addictions, which in turn cause social inequalities. It's a vicious circle and I don't pretend there are any easy solutions out there because if they were, we'd have made appropriate choices.

There are two factors though which I strongly believe will make a sustainable positive difference to alleviate the malaises of our society. One is to aim to make our society more equal because it has been demonstrated that societies are happier and have less violence, crime, addictions and health problems if the gap between rich and poor is not as wide as it is in the UK (the widest in Europe, and it even beats the U.S. which surprised me).

Secondly it's about the early years and good and responsible parenting, as well as a recognition by all parents that they are the people who will set up their children for life. Hence it's absolutely essential to support parents to do a good job. I'm not talking about pushy parents here, just about parenting that respects the child, that gives the child love and attention, and ambitions. Education will then add to this foundation, but education cannot bridge the attainment gap caused by growing up in poverty and deprivation; in fact school has been shown to increases the attainment gap. I'm not suggesting that poverty has to lead to low attainment at school, just that children growing up in poverty are more likely to be low achievers at schools, that there is a very real link, for many reasons. Some to do with the parents, some to do with the environment and lack of facilities. It's complex as all of these issues.

With these two principles in mind, it may become clearer why libraries, breast feeding support (breast feeding is a health indicator of deprivation - some areas of Glasgow have breast feeding rates of only 8% at the 6 week check-up) and children's centres (in England, we don't have Sure Start centres in Scotland) in my view are cuts that are very wrong. I would go further and propose a whole reassessment of value of professions. Because, if a child care worker earns less than a car mechanic, does that not show that we value cars more than children?

I do want to propose alternatives though. There is a lot of waste of money, resources in all walks of the working life. Business trips, special VIP treats etc to me are spitting people in the face who are unemployed and struggle to make ends meet. Most larger organisations have an inflated management structure - and managers are paid more than the actual front line staff. I also very much believe in a progressive tax system (ours is regressive at the moment due to the effect of VAT). While I realise that there are too few high earners and thus taxing them more doesn't change the world, it would contribute and make our society more equal.

On top of that, waste is also in physical resources. How much paper is wasted, how much stuff produced that we don't need? How about taking this age of austerity as an opportunity to reduce and reassess what is needed from what is not? If everybody cut out their waste of resources in their professional and personal lives, surely it would be a revolution of sorts?

What we cannot do is talk big words of big society and then withdraw the necessary support for this. If I, as a volunteer, want to provide a service (that really should be provided by a statutory body in the first place) it is simply stupid to withdraw the funding needed to provide a few hours of training.

Oh yes, and bring on fuel duty. If it can be cut, the deficit can't be all that bad. Fuel is not going to become any cheaper any time soon unless we build a few more nuclear power stations. Better get used to the real cost of fuel and prepare sooner rather than later that we have to rethink our worship of the car.