How far was Churchill personably responsible for maintaining national morale?

When Churchill took over from Neville Chamberlin it was at a time when national morale was low, particularly because of the Norway campaign, where although the British sent a task force to prevent invasion in Norway they were swiftly defeated by the Germans. This significantly cut national morale as the public became aware of the well disciplined and advanced nature of the German forces.

Churchill’s appointment in itself was a morale boosting act. Churchill was in political wilderness previously and had not held office in the previous national government, thus he was not associated with their failures. Throughout the 1930s Churchill had criticised appeasement and called for rearmament, this was significant to boost morale at the time of his appointment as the nation recognised he had the right ideas all along. MPs also felt a morale boost at the appointment of Churchill because most agreed that his bullish qualities and self belief meant he had the character for the job.

Churchill’s popularity with the public was a key factor in maintaining national morale. Historian Michael Lynch had found that his popularity with the public at times was as high as eighty eight percent, and even in his darkest moments never dropped below seventy eight percent. This is significant because it shows that the public were happy with Churchill as prime minister and they thought he was doing an adequate job, thus maintaining morale.

Churchill also had the ability to maintain morale by his skills in speeches. While his cabinet saw his speeches as emotional bravado, Churchill’s self confidence meant he convinced most of his cabinet and the population that it was better to fight on and hope America would be persuaded to join the war to support Britain. This was significant as rather than being a weak leader and putting doubts in people’s minds, Churchill was able to unite the country towards the war effort thus maintaining national morale.

However despite his ability to unify the nation Churchill also had his faults. Churchill has been described to be dictatorial and interfering in other governmental departments. This could be seen as morale damaging because Churchill’s nature could have led to alienation within government, leading to wider public doubts about his effectiveness as leader. This was similar with Churchill’s liaisons with army generals as he thought he knew more about tactics and strategy then the generals did. Similarly this could have alienated generals causing divisions in the army and working to damage national morale with the army such divided.

Churchill was also lucky in the composition of his cabinet in maintaining national morale. Deputy prime minister Clement Attlee was an effective organiser serving to organise the cabinet to make government efficient. Thus worked in Churchill’s favour to boost morale because it appeared Churchill had government in order, but this meant Churchill himself was not personally responsible for boosting morale.

Similarly Labour politician Ernest Bevin was responsible for maintain morale in the underlying structures of government. He fought against communist infiltration in the party and in unions. This served to keep the labour forces of the nation united and maintained national morale by keeping labour directed to the war. Historian Michael Lynch found Bevin had the enormous task of British industry to meet the demands of the war. This involved him negotiating with bosses, managers and trade unions to reach compromises that adequately rewarded workers. This served to maintain morale because as the workers felt better rewarded and paid it maintained morale.

In conclusion, on the face of government Churchill’s skill in self sufficiency, charisma and self belief served to maintain morale by providing a leadership that united and gave the nation a sense of hope and unity against foreign enemies. However it can be argued that in the underlying structures of government Churchill’s dictatorial nature threatened to tear parts of the country apart. It was also the underlying structures in Churchill’s colleagues that meant he appeared a more effective leader. Thus while Churchill appeared to maintain morale, his personable responsibility only stretched as far as his personality traits of charisma and self belief.

Assess the value of the left and right realist approaches to crime and deviance

Right realism sees crime, especially street crime as a real and growing problem that destroys communities, undermines social cohesion and threatens society’s work ethic. Right realist views correspond with conservative governments as they see it as a workable solution to curb rising crime. It’s led to a shift in thinking, away from researching the causes of crime and towards a search for practical crime control measures. They view the best way to reduce crime was through control and punishment rather than rehabilitating offenders or tackling causes of crime such as poverty. Right realism reflects this political climate. They criticise other theories for failing to offer any practical solutions to the problem of rising crime. They regard theories such as labelling and critical criminology as too sympathetic to the criminal and hostile to law and order. Right realists are less concerned to understand causes of crime and more concerned to offer realistic solutions. Although their main emphasis is on practical crime reduction, they do offer explanation for causes of crime.

Right realists reject the idea put forward by Marxists and others that structural or economic factor such as poverty and inequality are the causes of crime. For example against Marxists they argue the old tend to be poor but have a low crime rate.

Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) put forward a biosocial theory of criminal behaviour. They argue crime is caused by a number of biological and social factors. Biological differences between individuals make some people innately predisposed to commit crimes then others. For example personality traits such as aggressiveness, extroversion, risk taking and low impulse control put some people at greater risk of offending. Herrnstein and Murray (1994) argue the main cause of crime is low intelligence, which they also see as biologically determined.

However while biology may increase the chance of an individual offending effective socialisation can decrease this risk as it involves learning self control and internalising moral values of right and wrong. Right realists argue the best agency of socialisation is the nuclear family. Charles Murray (1990) argues crime is increasing because of a growing underclass who is defined by deviant behaviour and who fails to socialise properly. Murray argues the underclass is growing as a result of welfare dependency. Murray argues the welfare states “generous revolution” since the 60’s has allowed more people to become dependent on the state. It’s led to decline of marriage and growth of lone parent families as women and children can live of benefits. This means men no longer have to take responsibility for supporting families so they no longer need to work. However lone mothers are ineffective socialisation agents for boys. Absent fathers mean boys lack adequate male role models. Thus young males turn to other often delinquent role models on the street and gain status through crime rather than supporting families through a steady job. Murray argues the underclass is not only a source of crime. Its very existence threatens society’s cohesion by undermining the values of hard work and personal responsibility.

Rational choice theory assumes individuals have free will and the power of reason. A rational choice theorist such as Ron Clarke (1980) argues the decision to commit crime is a choice based on a rational calculation of the likely consequences. If the perceived rewards of crime outweigh the perceived costs of crime then people will be more likely to offend. Right realists argue currently the perceived costs of crime are too low and thus the crime rate has increased. For example they argue there’s often little risk of being caught and punishments in any case lenient. Marcus Felson (1998) uses routine activity theory. Felson argues for a crime to occur there must be a motivated offender, a suitable target and absence of a capable guardian. Offenders are assumed to act rationally so the presence of a guardian is likely to deter them from offending. Felson argues informal guardians such as those provided by the community are more effective ones than ones such as the police.

Right realists don’t believe it’s worth trying to deal with causes of crime such as poverty as they can’t easily be changed. They seek to devise practical measures to make crime less attractive. Their main focus is on control, containment and punishing offenders rather than eliminating the underlying causes of their offending or rehabilitating them. Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) article on broken windows argues it’s essential to maintain the orderly character of neighbourhoods to prevent crime taking a hold. Any sign of deterioration such as vandalism must be dealt with immediately. They advocate zero tolerance policy towards undesirable behaviour such as begging. The police should focus on controlling the streets so law abiding citizens feel safe. Crime prevention policies should reduce rewards and increase costs of crime to the offender, for example by target hardening with greater use of prison and maximising their deterrent effect.

However right realism is criticised both for explanations of crime and its solutions. Right realism ignores wider structural causes such as poverty. It overstates offender’s rationality and how far they make cost benefit calculations before committing a crime. While it may explain some utilitarian crime it may not explain violent crime. Its view that criminals are rational actors freely choosing crime conflicts with its view that their behaviour is determined by their biology and socialisation. It also over emphasises biological factors, for example Lilly et al (2002) found IQ differences account for less than 3% of differences in offending. Right realists are preoccupied with petty street crime and ignore corporate crime which may be more costly and harmful to the public. Advocating a zero tolerance policy gives police a free rein to discriminate against ethnic minority, youth ect. It also results in displacement of crime to other areas. Jones (1998) notes that right realists policies in the USA failed to prevent the crime rate rising. It over emphasises control of disorder rather than tackling underlying causes of neighbourhood decline such as lack of investment.

Jock Young argues left realism developed as a response to two main factors; the need to take the rising crime rate seriously and to produce practical solutions and the influence of right realism on government policy. Like Marxists left realists see society as an unequal capitalist one. However unlike Marxists left realists are reformist and not revolutionary socialists; they believe in the gradual social change rather than the violent overthrow of capitalism as the way to achieve greater equality. They believe we need to develop explanations of crime that will lead to practical strategies for reducing it in here and now, rather than waiting for a revolution and a socialist utopia to abolish crime.

The central idea behind left realism is that crime is a real problem and one that particularly affects the disadvantaged groups who are its main victims. They accuse other Marxists against not taking crime seriously. Traditional Marxists have concentrated on the crimes of the powerful such as corporate crime. Left realists agree this is important but argue it neglects working class crimes and its effects. Neo-Marxists romanticise the working class criminals as latter day robin hoods, stealing from the rich as an act of political resistance to capitalism. Left realists argue working class criminals mostly victimise other working class people; not the rich. Labelling theorists see working class criminal’s victims of discriminatory labelling by social control agents. Left realists argue this approach neglects the real victims – working class people who suffer at the hands of criminals. Part of the left realists project is to recognise there has been real increases in crime since the 1950’s, especially working class crime. Young (1997) argues this has led to an aetiological crisis, a crisis in explanation, for theories of crime. For example critical criminology and labelling theory tend to deny that the increase is real. They argue instead it’s the result of an increase in reporting of crime or an increasing tendency to label the poor. Thus the increase in crime statistics is just a social construction, not a reality. However left realists argue the increase is too great to be explained in this way and is a real one; more people are reporting crime because more people are falling victim to crime. As evidence they cite the findings of victim surveys such as the nationwide British crime survey and many local surveys. Taking crime seriously also involves recognising who is most affected by crime. Local victim surveys show that the scale of the problem is greater than official statistics. They also show disadvantaged groups have a greater risk of becoming victims, for example unskilled workers are twice as likely to be burgled then other people. Thus understandably disadvantaged groups have a greater fear of crime and have a greater effect on their lives. For example fear of attack prevents women going out at night. At the same time these groups are less likely to report crimes against them and the police are often reluctant to deal with crimes such as domestic violence, rape or racist attacks.

The second part of the left realist project to take crime seriously involves explain the rise in crime. Lea and Young (1984) identify three related causes of crime; relative deprivation, subculture and marginalisation.

Lea and Young argue crime has roots in deprivation. However deprivation itself is not directly responsible for crime. For example poverty was high in the 1930’s but crime low. Contrastingly since the 50’s living standards have risen but so has the crime rate. W.G. Runcimans (1966) uses the concept of relative deprivation to explain crime. It refers to how deprived someone feels in relation to others or compared to their own expectations. It can lead to crime when people feel resentment that others unfairly have more than them and resort to crime to obtain what they feel they’re entitled to. Leas and Young explain the paradox that today’s society is both more prosperous and crime ridden. Although people are better off they’re now more aware of relative deprivation due to media and advertising which raises everyone’s expectations for material possessions. Those who can’t afford them resort to crime instead. However relative deprivation doesn’t necessarily lead to crime. Young (1999) argues it’s a combination of relative deprivation and individualism. Individualism is a concern with the self and one’s own individual rights rather than those of the group. It causes crime by encouraging the pursuit of self interest at the expense of others. Left realists argue increasing individualism is causing the disintegration of families and communities by undermining the values of mutual support and selflessness on which they’re based. It weakens the informal controls that such groups exercise over individuals, creating a spiral of increasing antisocial behaviour, aggression and crime.

For left realists a subculture is a group’s collective solution to the problem of relative deprivation. However different groups may produce different sub cultural solutions to the problem. For example some turn to crime to close the deprivation gap while others find religion offers them spiritual comfort and what Weber calls a theodicy of disprivilege; and explanation for their situation. Such religious subcultures may encourage respectability and conformity. Key Pryce (1979) found in the black community is Bristol identified a variety of subcultures or lifestyles including hustlers, Rastafarians, saints and working class respectable. Left realists argue criminal subcultures still subscribe to values and goals of mainstream society such as materialism and consumerism. For example young (2002) notes there are ghettos in USA where there is full immersion in the American dream. However opportunities to achieve goals legitimately are blocked so they resort to street crime instead.

Marginalised groups lack both clear goals and organisations to represent their needs. Groups such as workers have clear goals, such as better pay and organisations such as trade unions to pressure employers and politicians. Thus they have no need to resort to violence to achieve such goals. Contrastingly unemployed youth are marginalised. They have no organisation to represent them and no clear goals, just a sense of resentment and frustration. Being powerless to use political means to improve their situation they express their frustration through criminal means such as violence and rioting.

Young (2002) argues we are now living in a stage of late modern society, where instability, insecurity and exclusion make the problem of crime worse. He contrasts today’s society with the period preceding it, arguing the 50s were the golden age of modern capitalism. It was a period of stability, security and social inclusion, with full employment, a comprehensive welfare state, low divorce rates and relatively strong communities. There was general consensus about right and wrong and lower crime rates. Since the 70s instability, insecurity and exclusion have increased. Deindustrialisation and the loss of unskilled manual jobs have increased unemployment and poverty, especially for the young and ethnic minorities, while many jobs are now insecure short term or low paid. These changes have destabilised family and community life and contributed to rising divorce rates as new right government policies designed to hold back welfare spending on the poor. All this has contributed to increased marginalisation and exclusion of those at the bottom. Meanwhile greater inequality between rich and poor and the spread of free market values encouraging individualism has increased the sense of relative deprivation. Young notes the growing contrast between cultural inclusion and economic exclusion as a source of relative deprivation. Media saturated late modern society promotes cultural inclusion; even the poor have access to the medias materialistic, consumerist cultural messages. Similarly there’s greater emphasis on leisure which stresses personal consumption and immediate gratification and leads to higher expectations for the good life. At the same time despite the ideology of meritocracy the poor are systematically excluded from opportunities to gain the glittering prizes of a wealthy society. Young’s contrast between cultural inclusion and economic exclusion is similar to Merton’s notion of anomie – that society creates crime by setting cultural goals such as material wealth while denying people the opportunity to achieve them by legitimate means such as decent jobs. A further trend in late modernity is for relative deprivation to become generalised throughout society rather than being confined by those at the bottom. There is widespread resentment at the undeservedly high rewards that some receive. There is also relative deprivation downwards where the middle class who have to be hard working and disciplined to succeed in an increasingly competitive work environment resent the stereotypical underclass as idle, irresponsible and hedonistic, living of undeserved state handouts. The result of the trend towards exclusion is that the amounts and types of crime are changing in late modern society. Firstly crime is more widespread and is found increasingly throughout the social structure, not just at the bottom of it. It’s also nastier with increase in hate crimes, often the result of relative deprivation downwards, for example attacks against asylum seekers. Reactions to crime by the public and state are also changing. With late modernity society becomes more diverse and there’s less public consensus on right and wrong, so that the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour becomes blurred. At the same time informal controls become less effective as families and communities disintegrate. This, along with rising crime, makes the public more intolerant and leads to demands for harsher formal controls by the state and increased criminalisation of unacceptable behaviour. Late modern society is thus a high crime society with a low tolerance of crime.

The final part of the left realist project is to devise solutions to the problems of crime. They argue we must improve both policing and control and deal with the deeper structural causes of crime. Kinsey, Lea and Young (1986) argue police clear up rates are too low to act as a deterrent to crime and that police spend too little time actually investigating crime. They argue that the public must become more involved in determining the police’s priorities and style of policing. The police depend on the public to provide them with information about crimes. However the police are losing public support, especially in inner cities and among ethnic minorities and the young. Thus the flow of information dries up and police instead rely on military policing such as swamping an area and using random stop and search tactics. This alienates communities who see the po9lice victimising local youth and it results in a viscous circle; locals no longer trust the police and don’t provide them with information, so the police resort to military policing. Left realists argue that policing must therefore be made more accountable to local communities and must deal with local concerns. Routine beat patrols are ineffective in detecting or preventing crime and stop and search tactics cause conflict. The police need to improve their relationship with local communities by spending more time investigating crime, changing priorities and involve the public in policing policy. Left realists also argue that crime control cannot be left to the police alone – a multiagency approach is also needed. It involves agencies such as local councils, social services and the public.

However left realists do not see improved policing and control as the main solution. They argue the causes of crime lie in the unequal structure of society and major structural changes are needed if we want to reduce levels of offending. For example young argues we must deal with inequality of opportunity and the unfairness of rewards, tackle discrimination, provide decent jobs for everyone, and improve housing and community facilities. We must also become more tolerant of diversity and cease stereotyping whole groups of people as criminal.

Left realists have had more influence on government policy than most theories on crime. They have similarities with the new labour stance of tough on crime, tough on causes of crime. For example new labours firmer approach to the policing of hate crimes echo left realist concerns to protect vulnerable groups from crime. However Young sees these policies as nostalgic and doomed attempts to recreate the golden age in the 50s. Young criticises the record of governments including new labour. He argues they have largely only addressed the symptoms such as anti social behaviour; they have been tougher on tackling crime than crimes underlying issues such as inequality.

Left realism has succeeded in drawing attention to the reality of street crime and its effects on victims of deprived groups. However it has been criticised. Henry and Milovanovic (1996) argue that it accepts the authority’s definition of street crime being committed by the poor instead of defining the problem as being one of how powerful groups do harm to the poor. Marxists argue it fails to explain corporate crimes which is more harmful even if less conspicuous. Interactionists argue that because left realists rely on quantitative data from victim surveys they cannot explain offenders motives. Instead we need qualitative data to reveal their meanings. Their use of sub cultural theory means left realists assume that value consensus exists and that crime only occurs when this breaks down. Relative deprivation cannot fully explain crime because not all those who experience it commit crime. The theory over predicts the amount of crime. Its focus on high crime inner city areas gives it an unrepresentative view and makes crime appear a greater problem then it is.

There are both similarities and differences between the two types of realism. For example both left and right realists see crime as a real problem and fear of crime as rational. On the other hand they come from different ends of the political spectrum; right realists are neo conservative while left realists are reformist socialists. It’s reflected in how they explain crime; right realists blame individual lack of self control while left realists blame structural inequalities and relative deprivation. Likewise political differences are reflected in their aims and solutions to the problem of crime; the right prioritise social order achieved through a tough stance of offenders while the left prioritise justice achieved through democratic policing and reforms to create greater equality.

 

Cuts in further education colleges

The cuts outlined by the condem coalition will be a savage attack on further education colleges, particularly in the adult education region.  £200 million will be cut in adult education, which will result in many courses being discontinued because of a lack of funding.  For adult colleges, an average of 16% of spending cuts will be implemented. This will be devastating for colleges; they will be unable to update their materials and resources, leading to a degrading educational experience and reducing the quality of education. The cuts will mean more applicants will be turned away. Already inadequate apprentiships will be compromised so that more students will be clogged in doing donkey work for businesses and not really learning anything of value to help them in the working world. They are more likely to learn how to deal with alienation at work, accepting orders without question and will be convinced that their low positions are their own making, rather then blaming the capitalist system, which has implemented these cuts and punishing the majority rather than the minority who caused the recession.

These cuts will see job losses of staff in colleges and bigger class sizes. This is inefficient and the quality of education is unfairly reduced. The already inadequate EMA grant will be reduced, and this will force young people into unskilled and low paid work, because it is too costly for them to be in full time education. With these cuts in education, the economy can’t move forward because of an inadequate number of skilled people, yet there will be a scrap heap of unskilled people, willing to accept low paid work or face poverty, which is a delight for the capitalists who exploit their cheap labour.

We demand that these cuts should be halted as they do not serve in the interest of the majority.  We demand that EMA should be increased, and an end to cruel means testing making EMA available to everyone. Free education from infancy to university should be implemented along with a living allowance grant while studying. We demand that all aprrentaships should have a guarantee at the job at the end, and to offer union rates of pay. Millions of jobs can be created by creating environmentally friendly public services. Only a working class movement can achieve this of workers and students as the needs of the majority will topple the needs of the minority.