This opinion piece was originally published in Russian by Kommersant FM radio
The disturbances which began in London have now spread to other British cities, including Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. David Cameron's government has pledged "harsh measures."
I've managed to get myself into an argument with some of my Facebook friends, especially those living in London. Some of them have suggested the looters and marauders are "victims of circumstance," and say the "system is to blame." Others suggest racism from London's police is the cause. I see the situation somewhat differently. Unlike the comparable riots in those very same Brixtons and Tottenhams in the 1980s, the race factor, even if it is at play, is not the primary one as so many seem to think.
If you watch the videos on YouTube, you will clearly see that among the hooligans, there are not only people of Afro-Caribbean heritage, but also "local" white people, and Arabs. But that's not the most important aspect. These events in Britain are the consequence of a trend in social policy that began in the 1960s. Even the 10-year rule of Margaret Thatcher with the associated radical campaign of privatization failed to stop it.
A significant proportion of taxes in Britain is spent on various social benefits, for people who are "professionally unemployed," some now into the third generation. The attitude that honest work or study is unbecoming of "real people" is very widespread among the residents of the poorer suburbs of the British cities, where the disturbances have taken place. Moreover, state schools, "liberalized" by leftist doctrines over the past 3-4 decades, have stopped demanding their students perform; discipline has become consumed by the culture of street gangs, a phenomenon allowed to flourish in conditions of welfare dependency.
Those who have spent their whole lives living off the state are now smashing up shops and robbing their neighbors' homes. They consider that the state hasn't provided them with enough. They want iPhones, designer trainers, new TVs. And so they go about expropriating them without the slightest discussion.
The police are unable to do anything, firstly, because they've recently seen their numbers cut. Secondly, they are demoralized by the supervision of the Left, and the constant accusations of using disproportionate force, cultural insensitivity, and the main, Bogeyman sin for the Left: racism. So, for example, an immigrant of Jamaican stock, breaking into a stranger's car, will scream that he is being detained by the police for the color of his skin rather than his intention to steal. And such scenarios often work to the advantage of the criminals.
The overall result is that subjects of the United Kingdom pay taxes that are at least comparable to Scandinavian levels (top tier of the income tax is 40 percent), but have a standard of living closer to, perhaps, Philadelphia (and not Copenhagen or Oslo). The difference being, of course, that unlike Sweden, with its 9-million-strong population, the British State, with its 60-million-strong population, can not and should not work as a nursemaid for each and every idler.
A moment of truth has arisen for the coalition government and personally for Prime Minister David Cameron. The racially and ethnically diverse, industrious, law-abiding, respectable in every regard "average British citizen" must be defended against vandals and robbers. If the police are unable to cope, the Army should be brought in. Facing an angry mob, the authorities must show that they have authority, that they're not nervous schoolgirls before a first date. Discussions of "the causes" should be postponed until after the pogroms have been stopped.
The answer, in my opinion, is clear. Fewer taxes. Fewer social benefits for the work-shy. Fewer rights for bureaucrats from the teaching unions and social services. Great Britain deserves more freedom and greater security than its somewhat cowardly political class has been willing to give it until now.
The opinions of the author are not necessarily those of RIA Novosti
