A classic underclass problem?

simon hb

Fraser, are you really suggesting that in 2008, a child born outside marriage is a symptom of an 'underclass'?

More importantly "violent crime was 650,330" - what? That's just meaningless. Like saying "fear was 98.3". I think you're talking about reported incidents of violent crime, and that there were that number of cases, but regardless - you're attempting to explain an increase in violent crime by, erm, pointing to an increase in violent crime.

Austin Barry

Perhaps the IQ issue discussed by Mr Murray in The Bell Curve is also relevant to the current problem (and I look forward to the howls of politically correct execration.)

Mike, Brighton

The lights are flashing red but no-ones at home to notice......
To address the problem the government first has to recognise the problem.

Given the Prime Minister is delusional and seems to think we have the highest rate of employment, low unemployment, low inflation, low taxes and low crime we're doomed to see many more children and youths die before we have some politicians of integrity and courage in power.

Politicians who are prepared to act rather than call silly press conferences and "summits" designed to demonstrate a façade of actions obscuring a hollow government bereft of ideas or direction.

toilet cleaner

Being a high achiever is not a description that I can give myself, but I put this down to my personality more than my actual ability. I just don't care enough to engage in all the back stabbing and and petty superficial behavior. This will be deemed as sour grapes, but I have reached the age now where I could give less of a toss about anything.
Every body knows what the problem with our society is, it's our selfish and greedy capitalist system of exploitation. This will never, ever change because of the nature of the beast it is. but I can see the obvious consequences taking root rapidly as it reaches critical mass. Like you say, all the anti knife crime laws in the universe are not going to help, but they are not really meant to though: so long as the few get fat, to hell with the rest.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth will increase ten fold as we implode in upon our selves. Nobody will ever listen, and there is nothing I can do to change the inevitable, so as awful as it may seem, I hope I live long enough to watch it all unfold with curious interest and a certain amount of doom laden defeatist pleasure.

Nicholas

This government's sledgehammer approach to tightening laws usually has unforeseen consequences, impacts law abiding people and generally has little positive effect on those it is targeting. The current debate over the availability of knives is a classic example and a classic red herring. As is the question of YouTube videos showing attacks.

I am surprised that none of the victims of these attacks have sued YouTube for showing them on the grounds of causing mental harm, which would be a catalyst for You Tube going after those who posted them in the first place.

An acquaintance of mine was the victim of a completely unprovoked street attack by a drunk, which left him hospitalised and requiring major surgery. He had major problems in seeking compensation for the injuries he had received, even after the perpetrator had been convicted (but not jailed) for the attack. The drunk was not a member of the "underclass" but holding a decent job (which he was able to keep).

Perry

Knife laws are but gesture politics (remember Bliar, - Dunblane (gun) and then the machete probs down in London? And all the public gush and fuss that flowed from the Air-Headed New Wonder Kid?).

Ten years later and the situation is, I suggest worse. Not least because it is in the face of laws that spite legitimate people and pander to bleeding heart socialista nonsense.

The causes are fundamental and much deeper. One large clue is the Murray thinking that you quote Fraser. But there are other factors.

The knife and gun situation is a tacit admission that society is flawed, and in large part because vital questions and their answers have been ignored for years. The remedies are not palatable to champagne socialist toffery, and so will be left aside (no pun intended).

Mz. Prudence of Noo-Boring-Liars, the Madame of Monstrous Mumbo-Jumbo, may hold what meetings she likes. I suppose, for some weird reason, such gatherings, once everyone has introduced themselves and simpered about how important they are, make her feel better. But in the real world, she and her coterie leave a grievous heritage.

Kevin F

I told my son (now 17) that my responsibility as a parent was to ensure as far as possible that he and his sister did not become members of the underclass.

So I try to give them everything they need (my time, love, a good education (yes, private school), a strong sense of self-worth and the need for self-reliance) - but often very little of what they want (money, self-gratification). Sounds trite but it seems to work.

Marin

But I keep hearing (if I'm not mistaken, this very morning on the BBC) the violent crime is falling!

Kiffa

If Charles Murray was here today???? What's happened to him?
Speccie readers, I urge you to read this economist's work. Easy to read, backed with sensible statistics. It makes so much sense, and provides wonderful ammunition to back the instinctive sense that the welfare state is all wrong, whilst being accused of 'racism,, cruelty, uncaring right winger, etc. etc.) that gets thrown at you in response.

Peter

Good post, but you imply Charles Murray is no longer with us - he is very much alive!

Hugh

Somewhat supports Cameron's point does it not!

CS

Why must people insist on bringing marriage into it?

The fact that a child's parents are not married does not mean that they are not living together. And the fact that a child's parents are married does not guarantee a loving upbringing for that child.

I do wonder when some people will learn that dictating marital and sexual behaviour has never done the Right any good apart from instilling smug moral superiority in people who'll vote for them anyway. Especially when it invariably turns out that the most passionate advocates of marriage are usually shagging every slapper they can get their hands on behind their wives' backs.

IDS' shock (!!!) announcement that children of unmarried parents tend to be more likely to get invlved in crime, unemployment and general feckless naughtiness was a complete logical fallacy.

If married parents are more likely to produce law abiding children, it's because the law abiding classes are more likely to marry each other.

If my mother is an alcoholic and my father is a drug dealer, my likelihood of growing up to be feckless is not going to be determined by whether or not they tied the knot.

John Page

What sort of social engineering would 'fix' this?

London Calling

And what exactly is your point?

The Knife, The Underclass,

The Hoodies, The Oinks?

Lock them up and throw away the key?

Don’t look back, there’s lot’s more you see.

Male Mentors would help

More Youth Clubs and Support

Educate, Educate,

Fund youth projects and sports.

Lets not keep pointing fingers,

Lets not pass the Blame,

Lets all work Together,

And start over again.

Smiley

"What sort of social engineering would 'fix' this?"

Soylent Green, perhaps? Maybe as one of your "five-a-day!"

Jonathan M. Scott

Well identified. The problem is that the left-liberal Labour Government has no idea how to solve the problem, and its social engineering has led to this problem.

It is time for action! Well, 2010 when the Tories get back in again, as Labour will do nothing effective about the problem.

Commondog

CS.

Marriage is a positive factor in the life of the children of that marriage.
Yes, of course a couple can live together, can raise children and care for them.
But children are wise and they look at adults with the eye of a detective, and when they look at their unmarried parents, they ask in their heads "why are these two people not prepared to go all the way?".

In the purer, stricter mind of a child, this kind of question must always generate feelings of instability.

Fraser Nelson

Simon hb and CS, I hope my PS has cleared it up for you - Murray is talking about family breakdown which he defines as marriage. I disagree, and think that lone parent families is the best metric for the points that you raise. But IDS figures were rooted in peer-reviewed academic studies - seriously CS, if you know of research that suggests it's a fallacy I'd like to see it.

Next, Murray would argue that the rise in violent crime is explained by rise in family breakdown and jobless young men. If young men are not anchored to a family or economy, he'd argue, things fall apart - and violent crime is a symptom of this.

Peter/Kiffa, I interviewed Charles Murray a while back in Washington and know he's very much alive. I meant "here" as in "here in London commentating".

And Mike/Hugh, this does support Cameron's point. But this comment thread (and especially CS' post) shows why this issue is peppered with landmines for any politician.

James J

To understand why the various social outcomes are getting worse it is necessary to accept that current fashionable social policies are experimental.
Our education system based on egalitarian objectives is no more based on a successful existing model than our criminal justice system based on ‘Rights’ and rehabilitation is.
If we want better outcomes then we need to be clear as to the primary objectives of policies. We also need to reconsider whether human nature is as malleable as many believe.

Max Kaye

"What sort of social engineering would 'fix' this?"

As one judge once quipped: "The accused may find productive employment in the agricultural sector - as fertiliser."

Trumpeter Lanfried

Kiffa @ 2.47 PM. I agree. Charles Murray's 'Bell Curve' is one of the most important books published in the last 100 years; as important as Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was in his day.

THX1138

Accoording to Mel P over on the blogs it's all the fault of the overclass whoever they are?

Verity

CS 3:47 - "I do wonder when some people will learn that dictating marital and sexual behaviour has never done the Right any good apart from instilling smug moral superiority in people who'll vote for them anyway."

Advocating marriage isn't done for votes. It is done to secure values for the next generation and is largely selfless.

The human desire to commit in marriage and raise a family universal. From Columbia to China. From Madagascar to Madrid. From Kenya to Kyoto. From Sydney to Soweto. People get married. It is a human desire to bring the next generation up in stability.

"Especially when it invariably turns out that the most passionate advocates of marriage are usually shagging every slapper they can get their hands on behind their wives' backs."

invariably? Are you daft? INVARIABLY?

Invariably, some men do shag slappers or women at the office, but they know they have to hide it because they are committed to a marriage. The sun rises. You can get ice cubes by putting ice trays filled with water in the refrigerator. These are facts of life. But most who stray (including women) find that the tie of the family they have created is stronger than a temporary attraction.

Marriage is universal because it is the strongest binder of fathers to their children.

Fergus Pickering

Verity is absolutely right. There, I never thought I would actually say that,

Hugh

Fraser, you introduced mines, and set my imagination going,

Think three sorts of minefields. Real fields; fields where some of the detonators are missing; and Dummy fields.

Simon hb confuses the particular mine, (a child) with the whole minefield. This is the missing detonators case, you may think the field (the research) ineffective but you cannot afford to ignore it, as each one may take off your foot.

CS has had his bluff called, and unless he can respond with peer reviewed research, we know he is a dummy and can safely ignore him.

John Welshman

On the cyclical nature of these anxieties, see my Underclass: A History of the Excluded, 1880-2000 (London, Continuum, 2006) and perhaps also my From Transmitted Deprivation to Social Exclusion: Policy, Poverty, and Parenting (Bristol, Policy Press, 2007)