The riots caught the country on the hop, but there are solutions to hand. Labour led the way, but we must make sure we steer the government in the right direction.

For those of us who lived through the 1980s the riots were a flashback to a darker time of social unrest. The government’s response to them must be two-tiered, as must ours. The first, shorter-term, aspect has to be reintroducing public order; the second identifying the causes of the unrest and introducing measured policies to punish offenders while diverting those involved on the periphery into more positive activity.

First, public order. In the wake of the disturbances there was a clear undercurrent of fear. The public need to be reassured that they can live without fear of gangs, shopkeepers need to know their livelihoods will be protected, and the police need to be confident that they can enforce public order without fear of attack.

The government addressed the immediate problem in London by getting more police on the streets. When police numbers there increased to 16,000 the rioting moved elsewhere. As ever, the best way to deter criminality is a visible policing presence. The irony of the prime minister championing the 16,000 police protecting the streets of London while pushing ahead with reckless cuts to the police service that will cost 16,000 police officers their jobs will not have been lost on the public.

Labour has consistently opposed the government’s cuts to policing. Before the election last year we stated that we would make substantial 12 per cent savings in the Home Office, allowing us to tackle some of the deficit whilst retaining the same police numbers. We know, the public know, and even Boris Johnson knows, that cutting police numbers is not part of a coherent strategy to restore public order. It is important to remind voters that this political choice by the government will render its rhetoric unrealistic.

We must also champion innovative policing that targets key perpetrators of crime. In Salford, Operation Gulf brings together the police and other agencies to track down and apprehend those responsible for serious organised crime. We now know that many serious criminals helped to orchestrate the riots – tackling those at the top will encourage those on the periphery to think twice about getting involved.

Second, the government must address the causes of the riots, including a focus on responsibility and community. That people felt no remorse about causing damage to their own communities, to the shops they use, the streets they walk on and to local jobs is incredibly disheartening. It is vital that we uncover why people felt they could riot and loot at will.

For Labour this means having some difficult conversations. We need to look at the actions of the rioters though the prism of the victims, not the offenders. As I argued at Progress annual conference earlier this year it is often strong Labour areas that suffer most from crime and antisocial behaviour – this applies to the riots too. People affected have little interest in abstract concepts of left and right on criminality – they want to see the practical application of policies based on right and wrong.

The fact that over 200,000 people have used the government’s e-petitions website to call for the withdrawal of benefits for rioters shows the level of anger amongst members of the public. And some councils are using existing powers to evict tenants found guilty of breaking the law.

However, moving people into the private rental sector – which the government has chosen not to regulate – is not a long-term solution. Indeed it risks placing offenders in a cycle of criminality. We thus need to make sure voters know that we will balance the need to punish offenders with proportionate policies that do not exacerbate problems of isolation and poverty.

On a practical level this could mean developing contracts with recipients of benefits, making clear exactly what penalties they face if they break the law. Any policy would differ depending on the severity of the crime, but being found guilty for a first offence could mean participation in a community payback scheme, a second offence the enforcement of victim surcharge schemes, and a third offence an automatic custodial sentence. A three-strike policy would also apply to those who do not receive benefits. Such an approach would bring existing schemes within the confines of a framework giving offenders advance notice of punishments and the opportunity to change their behaviour while reassuring the public that those who continually abdicate their responsibility to society will be punished.

The emerging cross-party consensus on family intervention projects is welcome. Established under Labour, these create pathways for the most dysfunctional families to mend their ways with clear penalties for those who refuse. They have been shown to work and, while the prime minister’s new support for our policy is admirable, such schemes need to be backed by resources. People that are struggling need role models, mentoring and, most importantly, the chance to work. The government must understand that, unless they create opportunities, much of their action will be futile.

What works in Lambeth will not necessarily work in Liverpool, and our response must recognise that localism will be more effective than a top-down approach. The government talks the language of localism; Labour should practise it.

Among the doom and gloom there is room for optimism. The riots showed some of the worst of Britain but also some of the best. We saw citizens across the country come together to clean up their communities. Responsible, committed people proud of where they live and determined to stand up against petty criminals – that is the true face of Britain and the one that we must build on.

—————————————————————————————

Hazel Blears is MP for Salford and a former secretary of state for communities and local government

—————————————————————————————

Photo: Neil101