Wednesday, July 12, 2006

The Hoodie Speech - Read it in Full

I wonder how many people who have rushed to criticise David Cameron's so-called 'Hug-a-Hoodie' speech have actually read it. Because if they had, they would have recognised that it followed in the final traditions of compassionate Conservatism. It was nothing to do with promoting the philosophy of bleeding heart liberalism. It was all to do with identifying a serious problem in society and challenging people to come up with the right solutions. This was a landmark speech. It wasn't soft on law and order, it wasn't saying we should 'hug a hoodie' and ignore any crimes they might or might not have committed. It was trying to examine how we've got to where we are and some groups of young people feel so alienated from society. I've highlighted in bold the sections I think are the most important.

One of the worst aspects of social injustice that people face is the fear and suffering caused by crime and disorder.In many communities, it's doing more to wreck the sense of general well-being than just about anything else.Everywhere I go, it seems to be the same story.People frightened to go out for a drink on a Friday or Saturday night because town centres turn into war zones.Neighbourhoods wrecked by vandalism, graffiti and a less tangible, but perhaps more damaging, sense of menace in the air.The complaints are identical.Young people are out of control.There's nothing for them to do.Why can't their parents do their job properly?Today I want to talk about how we solve these problems for the long term.Too often, the debate is about short-term solutions: ASBOs, curfews and criminal justice.Of course, we need these things to protect the public from anti-social behaviour today.But my aim is a society where we need them less and less.The long-term answer to anti-social behaviour is a pro-social society where we really do get to grips with the causes of crime.Family breakdown, drugs, children in care, educational underachievement - these provide the backdrop to too many lives and can become the seed bed of crime. Let me start by saying something about a part of the world I know well.You heard earlier from Femi, the star of Kidulthood.That film is set in my own neighbourhood in London - North Kensington, Ladbroke Grove, Harrow Road.It's a very different Notting Hill from the one you see in Richard Curtis films.The film gives a disturbing insight into the pressures that teenagers round there are under.The fact is, it's frightening for a man in a suit to walk down certain streets at night.But think how much more frightening it must be for a child.Kidulthood is not really about bad kids.Even the villain is clearly suffering from neglect and the absence of love. The characters are simply children in circumstances none of us would want to grow up in. Their reaction to those circumstances is not good.But it is natural.Crime, drugs, underage sex - this behaviour is wrong, but simply blaming the kids who get involved in it doesn't really get us much further.It is what the culture around them encourages.Imagine a housing estate with a little park next to it. The estate has "no ballgames" and "no skateboarding" notices all over it. The park is just an empty space. And then imagine you are 14 years old, and you live in a flat four storeys up. It's the summer holidays and you don't have any pocket money.That's your life. What will you get up to today?Take in a concert, perhaps? Go to a football game? Go to the seaside?No - you're talking £30 or £50 to do any of that. You can't kick a ball around on your own doorstep.So what do you do?You hang around in the streets, and you are bored, bored, bored.And you look around you. Who isn't bored? Who isn't hanging around because they don't have any money? Who has the cars, the clothes, the power? As Femi's character in the film found, even if you're not interested in crime, it's difficult to avoid the culture.Of course, not everyone who grows up in a deprived neighbourhood turns to crime - just as not everyone who grows up in a rich neighbourhood stays on the straight and narrow.Individuals are responsible for their actions - and every individual has the choice between doing right and doing wrong.But there are connections between circumstances and behaviour.It's easy to feel pessimistic when you see that film.But I think that's the wrong response.We can't just give up in despair.We've got to believe we can do something about the terrible problems of youth crime and disorder.We've got be optimistic about young people, otherwise we'll forever be dealing with the short-term symptoms instead of the long-term causes.And I think there are three things that are vital if we're to make all our communities safe and give every young person the chance they deserve.The first thing is to recognise that we'll never get the answers right unless we understand what's gone wrong.Understanding the background, the reasons, the causes.It doesn't mean excusing crime but it will help us tackle it.In that context I want to say something about what is, for some, a vivid symbol of what has gone wrong with young people in Britain today: hoodies. In May last year, hoodies became political.The Bluewater shopping centre banned them, and the Prime Minister said he backed the ban. I actually think it's quite right for politicians to debate these matters.But debating the symptoms rather than the causes won't get us very far.Because the fact is that the hoodie is a response to a problem, not a problem in itself.We - the people in suits - often see hoodies as aggressive, the uniform of a rebel army of young gangsters.But, for young people, hoodies are often more defensive than offensive.They're a way to stay invisible in the street.In a dangerous environment the best thing to do is keep your head down, blend in, don't stand out.For some, the hoodie represents all that's wrong about youth culture in Britain today.For me, adult society's response to the hoodie shows how far we are from finding the long-term answers to put things right.Camila Bhatmanghelidj, of the visionary social enterprise, Kids Company, understands.In her new book, Shattered Lives, there is an account of a girl whose pastime it was to "steal smiles", as she put it.To viciously hurt people in the street who she saw smiling. It's the only thing that would give her pleasure.Of course we should condemn her behaviour. But that's the easy part.Because if you knew that that girl had suffered years of abuse and neglect from her family, and years of institutional indifference from the social services……you would begin to understand that there is more to life on the streets than simple crime and simple punishment.That girl is getting better now, thanks to the deep understanding and patient work of Kids Company. She still struggles - Kids Company don't do miracles. But she's not offending any more and she's just completed a course with the Prince's Trust.So when you see a child walking down the road, hoodie up, head down, moody, swaggering, dominating the pavement - think what has brought that child to that moment.If the first thing we have to do is understand what's gone wrong, the second thing is to realise that putting things right is not just about law enforcement.It's about the quality of the work we do with young people.It's about relationships. It's about trust.Above all, it's about emotion and emotional development.Of course we should never excuse teenage crime, or tolerate the police ignoring it.We need tough sanctions, protection and punishment.And if the phrase "social justice" is to be meaningful, it has to be about justice, as well as compassion and kindness. It has to involve a sense of cause and consequence - of just rewards and just deserts.One of the most important things we can teach our children is a sense of justice.Too many young people have no understanding of consequences - of the idea that actions have effects.This is bad enough for us - wider society, who have to suffer the crime and cost of delinquency. But it is truly disastrous for them - the children themselves. Young criminals became older criminals, and they end up with wrecked lives, wrecked relationships, in prison, on drugs - either dead or with such a bad start in life they never really recover.So we have to have justice - we have to fight crime firmly and completely.Justice is about setting boundaries, and stepping over those boundaries should have painful consequences.But that's not the whole answer.To build a safe and civilised society for the long term, we have to look at what goes on inside the boundaries.If the consequence of stepping over the line should be painful, then staying within the bounds of good behaviour should be pleasant. And I believe that inside those boundaries we have to show a lot more love.We have to think about the emotional quality of the work we do with young people.That's where you, the social entrepreneurs, the voluntary organisations - the people doing the patient, painstaking work on the ground with young people - come in. If the police and criminal justice system guard the boundaries of acceptable behaviour - patrolling the territory beyond the pale - then community groups populate the interior.If the police stand for sanctions and penalties, you stand for love.And not a soppy love! I don't see anyone soppy here.But it is about relationships.It is about emotional security.It is about love. It seems sometimes that when it comes to these difficult social issues, we're obsessed with measuring the quantity of inputs.How much money.How many more staff.Whether targets are met.But if we're really serious about the issues, we should be measuring quality as well as quantity.What is the quality of the care and support we give young people?We sometimes see young people described as "feral", as if they have turned wild. But no child is ever really feral. No child is beyond recovery, beyond civilisation. That girl who stole smiles, who suffered so much, and who made others suffer so much, is getting better now. It is an achievement that the police, or prison, or government itself rarely manages. The brilliance of Kids Company, or the East Side Young Leaders Academy, or the other fantastic charities and social enterprises like them is that they can provide the love that is needed to begin to restore a young person to health and happiness.And that brings me to the third point I wanted to make today.To tackle youth crime and disorder for the long term, we will have to place real trust in the hands of the people and organisations that understand the challenges young people face, and can offer the quality of care and emotional support they need. We've heard a lot over the past few years about a partnership between government and the voluntary sector.Too often, the reality is that for "partnership" you can read "takeover."If we're serious about the social sector doing more, then government and the public sector has to learn to let go.To let the social sector and social entrepreneurs take wings and soar. It has to say to the youth club teaching kids excluded from school……the drug rehab with the best record of helping young people get clean and stay clean……or the faith-based charity bringing discipline and purpose to the chaotic lives of parents who've lost control...Our record is lousy; yours is great - so you should be in charge.Over the past few years, we've seen the opposite - a massive expansion in the state sector.That's especially true in the Home Office.In the end, it comes down to a question of values.There are two values at the heart of modern Conservatism.Trusting people, and sharing responsibility.And it's the intersection of those values that provides the right way forward.We want to share responsibility for tackling youth crime and anti-social behaviour because we believe that we're all in this together.That we'll never get to grips with the problem if we leave it all to the police and the criminal justice system.But sharing responsibility doesn't mean a fuzzy compromise where no-one is really accountable.It means really handing over power.Because we also believe in trusting people, we want to let them get on with what they do best. It's exactly the approach I've taken in developing an idea I put forward nearly a year ago…the idea of a national school leaver programme.I'm passionate about its potential to bring our country together and give every young person in Britain a sense of purpose, optimism and belonging.But I didn't sit down in my office and write a blueprint for how it would work.I brought together the real experts, leaders in youth work from over twenty different voluntary organisations.We discussed my proposal. They gave their views.And now they're in the driving seat.A new charity has been set up, called the Young Adult Trust.It has adapted my initial suggestions.And a pilot programme will soon be underway.I've played my part, helping to secure funding and bringing the right people together.But I'm not pretending I've got the answers.My job is to give a lead, not to take control.So today I don't just want to encourage you personally in the fantastic work that you do.I want you to know that a government I lead will give you the freedom to do it.Your work in the community, among the most difficult and the most marginalised of our children, is a central component of improving our society's sense of general well-being.Of course we need to be tough on crime and tough on youth offending.But we must also follow the three principles I've set out today.Understanding what's gone wrong in order to put things right…Giving priority to the emotional quality of the work we do with young people…And giving real power to the real experts who can make the biggest difference...If we follow these principles, if we approach this challenge with a sense of optimism and hope...I know we can make our country a safe and civilised place for everyone to live."

You can read David Cameron's speech in full HERE. I truly believe this is a landmark speech, which only suffered from a little bit of over "over-prebriefing". What people have failed to understand is that this is all part of a wider strategy - a strategy to attract support from those on the centre ground of British politics, using a different, more optimistic, more moderate language to convey some of the same points he and others, like Iain Duncan Smith, have been talking about for a very long time.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think cameron should be commended for trying to deal with a sensitive issue.

As soon as he had spoken the Labour spinners were making him out to be soft on crime but he is right - the current government has been all too quick to punish young people without looking into the causes and the reasons why.

It is always easier to try and stop the problem than look at the cause. Take depression for example, Prozac and other biological treatments may help the person in the short term but they do not treat the under-lying problems as to why the person is depressed.

Read my view of the hoody issue here.

Anonymous said...

I must say (as someone who’s working on a youth/education project for the last 3 and a half years) this is perhaps the most interesting thing I’ve heard a politician say about young people. He’s obviously very well briefed (kudos to who ever did that although I suspect I might know who) and on the money.

Plenty of times young people have put forward exactly the same views, they want to be understood, they want things to do with their time and they want support when things aren’t going well. If young people hear this type of thing (and see actual action) from more politicians it will go along way to boosting their confidence and interest in the political system and society as a whole.

That said, whether this policy will survive once the Tories take power (and they will soon enough I reckon) is another story entirely…

Anonymous said...

One tiny piece of the DC speech caught my eye:

"My job is to give a lead, not to take control."

In a life after Targets that message might well resonate with lots of ordinary people. (Doesn't apply to local A-lister refuseniks, obviously...)

Anonymous said...

This is convincing evidence that DC is a proper Tory because he believes that we're all in it together (he said that a while ago I seem to remember).

Contrast this with the liberal (or Whiggish) approach exemplified by this government (and the americans) which is exclusive. By that I mean that if you break the rules you are cast out and are no longer part of civil society. You become a bad person who has forfeited the right to belong because you are imperfect and thus have betrayed the great liberal progress towards human perfectibility in the world.


Tories take people as they find them and know there is no such thing as human perfectibility - that we are all imperfect and we must strive to do our best with what we are.(Or something like that - I've dashed this off so it might not say exactly what I want it to).
If the Conservatives succeed in getting this over they will have the basis of a new attractive manifesto which Newlabour won't be able to steal. Who was that stupid woman who said they were the 'nasty party'? She should have been expelled.

Scipio said...

I like Philip Walling's point, and wonder if he would care to expand on it for a guest appearence on my Blog? Phillip, if so, email me - adrian@different-travel.com

Anonymous said...

Give that man a prize!

I'm suitably impressed with what he's said, but wonder whether or not he has the will to commit to the sentiments and principles outlined once he takes the seat of government (EPP, anyone?).

It can't be a halfway approach, either. We either give our support to the specialist voluntary sector- the experts- or we back away from it. Any other way and it won't work, as he mentioned anyway.

I think he could have done more to satisfy a claim to recognising individuality so long as responsibilities are fulfilled. After all, I don't think hoodies are entirely a 'problem' or necessarily 'symptomatic' of a problem. They are merely items of clothing. It's the same with drugs and certain genres of music- they aren't problems in themselves, if certain sections of society choose to take them on as part of their lifestyles. As Cameron pointed out, not all people from rich neighbourhoods end up on the straight and narrow- should we therefore see being rich as being a problem, if it's a characteristic of a few problem individuals? That would be food for thought for the Daily Mail Massive...

Serf said...

Its a well thought out speech. If you can separate the concepts of understanding and condoning (which the left fails to do) you are in a better position to solve problems.

As a bit of a traditional Conservative though, I think one thing is glaringly missing. The vast majority of these problem children come from broken homes. A Conservative government should support marriage so that less children have to cope with a less than ideal home environment. (I understand if he skipped this for tactical reasons)

I also noticed (as anonymous did)
"My job is to give the lead, not take control"

Every successful manager knows this, but the current occupant of Number 10 is ignorant of the fact. I am glad that Dave is better informed.

Anonymous said...

After years of targets and relentless, depressing centralization from NewLab this is utterly refreshing. Agencies like the social services (gawd bless 'em) have a mindset that begins with control and management (or mismanagement); voluntary organisations tend to focus on opportunity (ie. the opportunity they can offer the disadvantaged to change their lives for the better). If DC can deliver, then as you say Iain this could be a seminal speech.

Anonymous said...

Contrast this with Phoney Tony's big knee-jerk idea of marching trouble causers off the the ATM for an on the spot fine. I seem to remember he flounced off to Italy for another freebie when it was pointed out what a stupid f...ing idea that was.

Anonymous said...

Iain Dale is right about this speech - it was a very significant and eloquent analysis of a serious social issue and deserves to be applauded by all Tories.

Conservatism is not just about lower taxes and market-driven economics - commendable though such policy positions are - it is about bringing traditional Tory values of responsibility, self-help and compassion to bear on the darkest social problems facing our society. Cameron's compassionate conservatism and IDS's Centre for Social Justice are the way forward. It is a scandal that some of these deprived estates exist in 2006 - tackling their problems should be at the top of the Tory agenda, and with Cameron it just may be.

But, still on hoodies etc, what can we do about Simon Heffer (viz his article in this morning's Daily Tel)? Is he really going to be carping and whingeing about Cameron for the next decade? Can't he grow up and get a life (and perhaps read the actual speech next time to avoid making errors)? Strewth...

Anonymous said...

Well,some of you are easily bamboozled. If you read the speech with a critical eye, you will see that, as Phone Cam Foolery said, it's bollocks and it's what we've had for the last decade.

What Cameron needs to address is not violent,feral teens wearing hoods - and if you read reports of some of the people who have been attacked by these young criminals, you will see that they don't need a hug; they need the birch - but the fact that all these yobs doubtless came from "families" where there was no father present.

This is because Labour is beavering away at destroying the family by withdrawing legitimate tax benefits from legitimate families, has removed the embarrassment of single motherhood - and indeed has nurtured it with endless benefits and housing and has built up an entire social worker structure around these households. All under the guise of not being judgemental.

A pound to a penny none of these boys lives in a family with an adult male in the house. I would bet that most of them have no idea who their biological father is, or maybe saw him once or twice when they were small. His half-siblings will also not know their biological fathers.

This is what needs to be addressed. Not "trust". Not "listening" blah blah blah. These kids are beyond that.

What Dave needs to address is the deliberate vandalism the socialists have visited on the nuclear family. This is urgent.

Martine Martin said...

Brilliant! Thanks for this post Iain, I've actually had trouble finding the full speech anywhere.

I've been irritated immensely by the New Labour immediate spin, with all that "hug a hoodie" nonsense. If DC came up with a means to world peace in a week, they'd still reduce it to a scornful catchphrase.

And as someone a stone's throw away from the hoodie generation, with "hoodie" friends, his words really resonate.

Anonymous said...

Im a bit disappointed.

I am not a Tory and I am continually annoyed with Cameron's attempts at populism, but I thought that he had raised an interesting issue here.

However the speech says nothing. He namechecks a few people and a film (to prove he's down with it) and then says that he like charities a lot. Other than that, I was incredibly unimpressed.

Soundbite politics without the bite.

Anonymous said...

Note at PMQs that several Labour MPs had a go at Cameron, but Blair refrained from making a direct joke about hug a hoodie? Could it be that they have tested the Cameron speech in their focus groups and have found it to be rather popular?

Anonymous said...

Isn't this what the left has been saying for years? And haven't the right always accused them of being naive for it?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous is on to something when he points out Simon Heffer's rather outdated opinions in this morning's Telegraph. Can he not just shut up and at least give DC a chance. I know that much is missing and the country is not being set alight by the Conservative campaign, but I think DC has the makings of something appealing and should be supported, not denigrated at every opportunity by Heffer

Anonymous said...

Yet more guff from Cameron. I wonder where it all comes from.

I live in a beautiful part of the world with good schools and low unemployment. However despite a favourable environment we still suffer from yobbish youths in hoodies, crime and drug problems. You may recall when the Tories were in power Labour blamed crime on unemployment. The Tories rejected this argument and rightfully since lower unemployment and economic prosperity have not solved the problem of crime. Whilst I know there are many hard cases who need help, I would suggest the growth and spread of anti-social behaviour into for want of a better expression the "leafy suburbs" is not down to complex socio-economic factors but because the perpetratrs know they can get away with it.

Anonymous said...

jm,

That is spot on. What is more annoying is that the left have had to tone down their comments because of ridiculous attacks from opponents. (i.e, Labour anti-Lib Dem leaflets with the crap about being soft on crime for not voting for ASBOS)

Anonymous said...

Whilst I would agree that the single parent has problems bringing up a loutish kid, it certainly isn’t the main reason for bad behavior. The main problem stems from a complete lack of interest by parents in rearing kids. Many don’t take an interest in their education and provide them with TV’s, stereos, computers and everything else, pack them away to a bedroom somewhere and would rather not hear another peep. The same parents are quick to defend their offspring when they are accused of crimes, yet they don’t know what their kids are doing half of the time.

Sorry to say that because of excessive taxation, most working class mothers simply have to take a job nowadays and are simply too tired to cope with a household. This is of course all to do with the so-called “New Economy” of New Labour which has exported the real jobs, leaving the most workers with low paid service jobs with unsocial hours.

So all-in-all there’s not a lot Dave could do anyway, unless he taxes people a lot less so that mothers don’t have to work. As for the young thugs, I learned a long time ago that their behavior isn’t all linked to “family” problems. Most of the little sods just enjoy gratuitous violence and their behavior will certainly not change with a few hugs. My elderly aunt was recently punched and kicked in the head AFTER a gang of Hoodies had grabbed her handbag. My sister was also attacked and knocked to the ground during an attempt to grab her purse. What we need to see David dear, is not someone far removed from the violence telling us that they are misunderstood (they’ve been telling us that for generations!) and offering to root out the cause. We all know the cause and there isn’t a cat in hell’s chance of stopping it! What we need to do is make the punishment fit the crime.

Anonymous said...

vienna woods is correct. There has been, basically, a moratorium on punishment, especially since Blair and his rabid wife Cherie got in. Community service - for which they don't show -, electronic tagging, early release for pleading guilty, etc.

Any party that promises to bring back the birch will get voted in by a landslide. Of course, they wouldn't stoop so low, preaching tolerance from the safety of their secure mansions and flats and their armoured cars. And when they get sick, no mixed wards for them! No worry that an orderly will assault an elderly lady in their family!

But I guarantee, any party that promises a return to corporal punishment would get in.