Be tough on a crucial cause of crime - neoliberalism

[Democratic Hawk]

In an article entitled Be tough on a crucial cause of crime - neoliberalism in yesterday's Guardian , Professor Robert Reiner [Criminology, London School of Economics] argued that neoliberalism is a cause of crime

I know the article relates to the UK but it could also be relevent to the US or indeed anywhere else. The link to the article is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1649254,00.html

I'm minded to say that I agree somewhat with Reiner. It goes a long way towards explaining why I'm not, never have been and never will be an economic neoliberal - even though the gist of his article is a critique of both Thatcher and Blair and the consensus he terms 'Blatcherite'

Dave

[dazzleman]

The article doesn't really say much.  The supposition seems to be that Thatcherite policies, supposedly adopted by Blair, cause crime because market-based reforms increased economic inequality.

My guess it that crime was rising long before anybody in Britain had ever heard of Thatcher.  A similar thing to say with respect to the US is that Reagan's policies caused an increase in crime, when crime peaked around the time he became president, and had been rising for the previous 20 years.  This is kind of like blaming the 2003 Iraq invasion for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

I do agree on the importance of non-police factors in controlling crime, most particularly the family.  Yet I seriously doubt that Thatcher and her supporters were in the forefront of breaking down the social order and family structure.  In actuality, her opponents were.

[opebo]

dazzleman, as usual, fails to understand the sources of poverty and privilege.  The article is correct.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He has a point in that certain economic policies of the Thatcher government in the '80's (on the one hand the the collapse of many staple industries and on the other hand the boom in the financial services sector, both of which were encouraged by the government at the time) have certainly weakend social cohesion and it's unarguable that the former has accounted for a rise in crime in some old industrial areas. Beyond this very basic and very obvious point, he's talking a load of rubbish and on several occasions he flat out lies (either that or he is astonishingly ignorant of the real world).
I probably don't need to point out that the economic policies of the post-97 Labour government (the architect of this being Gordon Brown; Blair is no economist and has never had much interest in that sort of thing) are a world away from the economic policies of the Thatcher government, and that the present government's action on economic development, welfare and so on are even further away (interesting fact; the current government has redistributed more to the poorest sections of society than any government since Attlee and, generally speaking, the results have been impressive. The only reason why inequality has technically risen in recent years, and even so it's not by much, is due to the good economic conditions of the past decade. The rich have got richer. But, and this is the important thing, the poor have NOT got poorer... and if you take out the very richest segments of society (who might as well live on a different planet. Besides, most of their money is really real anyway) you will find that society has actually become more equal of late). In short his "Blatcherite" bogey man is just a load of ****. (oh and his claim that the welfare state has been rolled back into almost nothing is quite clearly a lie; either that or he really does live in an ivory tower).
It should also be pointed out that crime has actually fallen a lot in recent years; the main "new" problem is anti-social behavior/petty crime, and that is something that Reiner clearly doesn't understand and clearly doesn't have any ideas as to what might solve the problem. I should probably point out that the most enthusiastic supporters of ASBO's (something that I suspect that Reiner is no fan of) are people living in deprived areas. Why doesn't Reiner bother to find out what these people think? Maybe because he's well aware that most would find the usual leftist view of criminals as "victims of society" as a seriously sick joke?

</rant>

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I should also add that I wouldn't mind seeing the word "neoliberal" banned

[Democratic Hawk]

In short his "Blatcherite" bogey man is just a load of ****. (oh and his claim that the welfare state has been rolled back into almost nothing is quite clearly a lie; either that or he really does live in an ivory tower).

Yes, he is rather dismissive of Labour's socio-economic progressive record since 1997 but I'm minded to agree with about Thatcher's economic policies of 1980s, which is why I agree with his argument somewhat and not strongly

Blair believes in social justice, which is something Thatcher didn't

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I should also add that I wouldn't mind seeing the word "neoliberal" banned

Yes, and replaced by "nastynomics" or words to that effect

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

but I'm minded to agree with about Thatcher's economic policies of 1980s, which is why I agree with his argument somewhat and not strongly

Like I said, he does have a point there. In some cases anyway; there was certainly a link between the collapsing economies of most towns in Northern England, South Wales and Central Scotland (and resulting mass unemployment) and the subsequent breakdown in social order and rise in crime (although in the case of Liverpool part of the blame goes to the moronic Trots running the council at the time), but I think that the rise in crime in London had more to do with various longterm factors, that by the time anything was done about it (mid '70's) it was far too late.

[Bono]

What is this neo-liberalism thin anyways?
I never heard someone descrive himself as a neoliberal. it is always the left when they are trying to do an ad-hominem attack, that talk about "ultra-neo-liberals" or something like that.

[opebo]

and if you take out the very richest segments of society (who might as well live on a different planet.

A great idea!  How do you suggest they be taken out? 

What is this neo-liberalism thin anyways?

'Laissez-faire' capitalism. 

[Bono]

and if you take out the very richest segments of society (who might as well live on a different planet.

A great idea!  How do you suggest they be taken out? 

What is this neo-liberalism thin anyways?

'Laissez-faire' capitalism. 

Then why don't they just say that, instead of making up a strawman no one indentifies as?

[John Dibble]

and if you take out the very richest segments of society (who might as well live on a different planet.

A great idea!  How do you suggest they be taken out?

I suggest we shoot them. Let's start with you.

[opebo]

and if you take out the very richest segments of society (who might as well live on a different planet.

A great idea!  How do you suggest they be taken out?

I suggest we shoot them. Let's start with you.

Believe me, I'm on your planet, Dibble.  Al is talking about another sort of person, obviously - the sort of person this world is run for. 

[Peter]

Blair believes in social justice, which is something Thatcher didn't

Well I disagree with that, he seems more and more to believe in mob justice, which is the imposition of the majority on the minority in all cases. But as Al says, Gordon is running the country not him, so we're safe.

I'll continue to disagree with Al about 1980s Britain. GRRRR.

[John Dibble]

and if you take out the very richest segments of society (who might as well live on a different planet.

A great idea!  How do you suggest they be taken out?

I suggest we shoot them. Let's start with you.

Believe me, I'm on your planet, Dibble.  Al is talking about another sort of person, obviously - the sort of person this world is run for. 

What are you talking about? You are leisured, and therefore OBVIOUSLY you must be part of the owning class - the world is only divided into owners and workers, have you not said so yourself? Further, you rank among the most lazy of the owning class, making you a prime candidate and a posterboy villain for our noble crusade to rid the world of your kind. In the name of equality you and the rest of your kind must be expunged from the world!

[A18]

and if you take out the very richest segments of society (who might as well live on a different planet.

A great idea!  How do you suggest they be taken out? 

What is this neo-liberalism thin anyways?

'Laissez-faire' capitalism. 

Then why don't they just say that, instead of making up a strawman no one indentifies as?

I consider myself a neoliberal. How is it a bad term?

[Bono]

and if you take out the very richest segments of society (who might as well live on a different planet.

A great idea!  How do you suggest they be taken out? 

What is this neo-liberalism thin anyways?

'Laissez-faire' capitalism. 

Then why don't they just say that, instead of making up a strawman no one indentifies as?

I consider myself a neoliberal. How is it a bad term?

You don't live in Europe.

[Democratic Hawk]

I consider myself a neoliberal. How is it a bad term?

Could be that you support the economy of greed and not of need

Dave

[dazzleman]

I consider myself a neoliberal. How is it a bad term?

Could be that you support the economy of greed and not of need

Dave

An "economy of need" may sound good, but it generally causes more economic misery than an "economy of greed" as you call it.

[opebo]

I consider myself a neoliberal. How is it a bad term?

Could be that you support the economy of greed and not of need

Dave

An "economy of need" may sound good, but it generally causes more economic misery than an "economy of greed" as you call it.

More importantly, it intereferes with the supremacy of the people who are at the pinnacle of the social heirarchy.

[John Dibble]

I consider myself a neoliberal. How is it a bad term?

Could be that you support the economy of greed and not of need

Dave

An "economy of need" may sound good, but it generally causes more economic misery than an "economy of greed" as you call it.

More importantly, it intereferes with the supremacy of the people who are at the pinnacle of the social heirarchy.

Yes, clearly toppling the owning class is worth this being common among the masses, as it is in North Korea.