They Still Don't Get it

It's called "governing"

I keep the British journal, The New Statesman, in my feeds mainly because my hero, Christopher Hitchens, used to write for them. Their latest article about the success of Reform in local elections shows us how clueless they still are.

It begins

What does Labour really think about the grooming gangs? Is even raising the subject deplorable, racist politics, as the Leader of the Commons suggested? Or is the scandal, as a Downing Street source told me, “one of the biggest injustices this country has ever seen… a whole-state failure to protect some of the most vulnerable people in Britain and the mass rape of children in a cold-hearted, systemic way. People need to be arrested, and people need to be deported.”

It is a crucial question because, in this new political landscape where Labour sees Reform as its great opponent, we must discover where the dividing line lies between the two parties.

So the only question about grooming gangs is, “what is the proper political line to take?” and not “what should a party holding the keys to the government do about them?”

What does “grooming gangs” mean?

This article in The Week gives a good tutorial on this topic, if you’re not British. If you are: the UK still has something resembling a free press and there have been loads of stories about it over the years.

Why are they called grooming gangs?

Child sexual abuse is mostly carried out by relatives and other trusted figures. But in these cases, gangs used grooming techniques to find their victims in public: girls aged 11 to 16, mostly white, often from troubled backgrounds, would be courted by men a few years older, who often worked as taxi drivers or in takeaways; many were involved in the illegal drug trade. The girls would be given alcohol or drugs and would begin a sexual relationship with one man, who would then coerce them, often violently, into having sex with his friends or relatives.

"It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered," noted Alexis Jay's 2014 inquiry report into abuse in Rotherham. "They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten and intimidated." Children were "doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened [that] they would be next if they told anyone. Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators." Some victims were murdered: in Telford, Lucy Lowe died at 16 with her mother and sister when her abuser set fire to her home in 2000. She was pregnant a second time by him when she died.

Many of these rapists have been convicted and imprisoned. But who should have been on the job and stopping it, at the time? The Week’s article continues:

How did the authorities respond?

A series of local inquiries have exposed an official response that was unforgivably inadequate. In her report on Rotherham, Jay said that South Yorkshire Police had treated child victims with "contempt", and that social workers had "underplayed" the problem.

In at least two cases, police arrested the fathers of girls who had attempted to remove their daughters from the houses where they were being abused. On another occasion, police attended a derelict house and found an intoxicated girl with several male abusers; they arrested the child for being "drunk and disorderly", but detained none of the men.

Inquiries in both Telford and Rotherham also found that child sexual exploitation was dismissed as "child prostitution"; teachers and social workers were discouraged from reporting abuse. Witnesses were not protected. Other inquiries and reviews in Rochdale and Oldham identified similar issues.

What explains these failings?

There are a range of explanations, from lack of understanding and incompetence to snobbery, misogyny and fear of inflaming racial tensions.

Many of the victims came from care homes. Some police officers referred to them as "slags", and to their abuse as a "lifestyle choice"; the issue was given a low priority. Prosecutors saw victims as poor witnesses. Social workers in Rotherham were often "overwhelmed", Jay found. Another inquiry found that Rotherham Council was "in denial".

There is evidence that many officials feared being accused of racism. In 2004, a Channel 4 documentary about Asian men grooming girls in Bradford was postponed over fears that it could lead to race riots; Jay found that councillors had fretted that discussion of the issue could harm "community cohesion". Telford's inquiry also identified a "nervousness about race". Because a vast amount of evidence was ignored, there have been many claims of cover-ups.

Politics Takes Over

Now we come to heart of the issue: is the Reform Party exploiting this issue for racist reasons? Are they “weaponizing” it?

The answer is: maybe so, maybe not, but it’s irrelevant. A government exists to protect its residents against abuses like these gangs committed. Failure to do so is a legitimate political issue, and if Reform’s criticism is “weaponizing” it, then Labour must think they’re above criticism.

Here’s a Labour Party Cabinet minister:

Cabinet minister Ms Powell, Manchester Central MP since 2012, is accused of having 'belittled' victims' following comments she made when responding on BBC Radio 4's Any Questions to Tim Montgomerie, founder of the website ConservativeHome.

In a discussion about councils' diversity spending, Mr Montgomerie asked Ms Powell whether she had watched a recent Channel 4 documentary on five women who had been victims of sexual grooming.

She replied: 'Oh, we want to blow that little trumpet now, do we? Let's get that dog whistle out, shall we?'

So the phrase “grooming gangs” is a “dog-whistle” to the racists?

Again in case you missed it, Ms. Powell: how well the government is doing its job is the very definition of a legitimate issue, no matter who is raising it.

The New Statesman article goes on

Keir Starmer’s trouble is that Labour needs to do two things at once. It needs urgently to respond to a real feeling that it has drifted away from ordinary people’s priorities, while at the same time coming up with policy answers and language that don’t mimic Reform. If you end up with the politics of “kick out the migrants” or “climate change is a hoax”, then why would anyone vote for Starmer rather than the real thing, Nigel Farage?

Tough problem, if you consider it purely a political question. “How will it look if we sound just like Nigel Farage?” In this case, you’ll look like a serious governing party who does the right thing no matter whose idea it was.

Original Sin: Thinking Perception » Reality

I’ve often thought that the Catholic doctrine of “original sin” is a good one to apply to political thinkers, in business as well as in politics. Usually it’s not an engineer who think there no external reality. It’s someone in Marketing, Management, or Politics who thinks “Whatever I can persuade people is true, is the truth.” Their first concern with any words or actions is, “How will this look?”

Indeed you can construct examples where you’re dreaming something that doesn’t exist, or maybe we’re all in The Matrix. Any precocious high schooler can come up with more of these. And don’t even talk to me about observer bias and quantum entanglement.

But the key of the success of Science for the last 400 years is, multiple people have to perceive it. That’s the protection against self-deception, and that’s why scientists tend to think that there IS an external reality, even if it’s hard to pin down.

The “deplorables” in Hillary Clinton’s words, the “bitter clingers” in Obama’s, and whatever word Ms. Powell uses in private (“yahoos”?) also tend towards the common sense understanding of reality. Boys are boys and girls are girls, and too many illegal migrants have a damaging effect on society, and therefore, we should send them back. Especially if they’ve committed crimes. Until 15 or so years ago, this wasn’t even a controversial opinion. Labour governments and Tory governments alike carried it out.

So yes, either the Conservatives or Labour will co-opt the more popular parts of the Reform platform, if it’s not too late. Or maybe Reform will be the most popular party in the next election. Punishing the rapists and deporting them isn’t something to be poll-tested; it’s just good government.

And by the way, the police and social workers who pooh-pooh’ed the numerous rapes need to face justice, too, not just the rapists. If it’s too late to imprison them, they should at least be forced to resign.