That David Cameron speech in full

I didn't get the opportunity to see David Cameron's #londonriots speech live on the BBC, as I have been trying very hard to get some work done this morning and not be endlessly distracted by that there Twitter. However I did enjoy the reaction:

@The_No_Show: Being deafened by the collective "Well, D'UH" echoing through twitter right now. #Cameron

so I thought a close reading of the transcript might be fun.

People should be in no doubt that we will do everything necessary to restore order to Britain's streets and make them safe for the law-abiding.

This is pure, meaningless rhetoric, which is easy enough to identify because no politician would ever argue for the opposite. Perhaps if the election had gone a different way, David Miliband would have come out to say that he would do some necessary things to restore order, but not everything, and possibly some unnecessary things as well just for the hell of it.

Meaningfully, all this does is reiterate the purpose of the police - make the streets safe for the law-abiding - a job they generally do very well (with some notable exceptions) but at which they are demonstrably unsuccessful. Rhetorically, it is a device to associate the actions that will follow with the idea of necessity. If you're trying to fix a problem with no absolute knowledge of its perfect solution, it is highly likely that some of the actions you take will be perfectly unnecessary, because you're not sure what will and won't work. This bit of nonsense tries to assert that because Cameron will do everything necessary, everything Cameron does will be necessary.

These are sickening scenes. Scenes of people looting, vandalising, thieving and robbing.

"In case you've only just tuned in, some people have been committing crimes." This escalates the emotion of the situation - something which the country as a whole desperately does not need right now. Compassion for the victims of the crimes, by all means - but what we need from you, a politician, is an answer.

It is criminality pure and simple and it has to be confronted and defeated.

A more detailed answer would be nice though, David.

I feel huge sympathy for the families who've suffered, innocent people who've been burned out of their houses and businesses who've seen their premises smashed, their products looted and their livelihood potentially ruined.

Ah, here's the compassion. Good stuff.

I also feel for all those who live in fear because of these appalling scenes we see on the streets in this country.

That... might be going a bit far. "Live in fear?" It's been three days. "The streets in this country?" Without wanting to trivialise the impact these assaults have had on local areas, these are very localised disturbances. This is lazily overstating the problem.

People should be in no doubt that we are on the side of the law-abiding people who are appalled by what has happened in their own communities.

Again, useless rhetoric. It's a good thing you came back from holiday, David, to tell us that you disapprove of people breaking the law.

As ever police officers have shown incredible bravery on our streets in confronting these thugs but it's quite clear we need much more police on our streets and even more robust action.

My understanding is that the police haven't been confronting the "thugs" - nice emotive word there David, I hope you don't mind me pointing that out - enough. Probably very brave though. This is the part that received the chorus of exasperated 'DUH's from Twitter, to which there's not much I can add. This is obvious to anybody who's been paying attention. What isn't obvious to us though, because we're not politicians with top access to police officials and tactics advice, is what sort of action.

The Metropolitan police commissioner has said compared with the 6,000 on streets last night, there will be 16,000 officers tonight. All leave within the Metropolitan police has been cancelled.

That's the more police dealt with then, which is a good thing, but we should all take a long moment to feel extremely sorry for the apparent 10,000 people who've just been called in on their day off, or who have had to come back to work during their booked annual leave.

There will be aid coming from police forces up and down the country...

Uhm. Really? Doesn't that strike you as a little... capital-centric? Given that the riots in London have been partially fuelled by a lack of police presence, does it really seem wise to deprive other areas of police?

...and we'll do everything necessary to strengthen the police forces.

There's that "everything necessary" again! No details on what that could possibly mean, though. Steroids? Sudden colossal investment to improve equipment? Go back in time to provide better training? Stop the budget cuts?

We will make sure court procedures and processes are speeded up.

HAH! How exactly? The judicial system is one of the most expensive and slow-moving institutions we have in this country, and with good reason. Once again, some powerful rhetoric there, but wholly without useful meaning.

People should expect to see many more arrests in the days to come.

"I have reminded the police what their job is."

I am determined that justice will be done and these people will see the consequences of their actions.

"I have reminded the courts what their job is."

I have this very clear message for those people who are responsible: you will feel the full force of the law and if you are old enough to commit these crimes you are old enough to face the punishment.

Okay, this is either a bare-faced lie, or an extremely carefully worded tautology. The age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10. Rioters younger than 10 can not - and should not - be held criminally responsible for their actions because they are not deemed to have the moral and social capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. This can be changed by act of parliament, of course, but does anybody really want to put a queue of eight year olds through the courts? Alternatively, it may simply be a tautology because those who are below the age of criminal responsibility may not be considered to have legally committed any crimes - whereas if you are, you are.

To these people I would say this: you are not only wrecking the lives of others, your own communities, you are potentially wrecking your own life too.

This is the problem you need to address, David: hundreds, possibly thousands of people, have decided that the immediate benefits of massive theft and destruction outweigh the potential consequences. You are addressing people who have made a rational decision to ignore morality and the traditional social contract - it is your job as a politician to work out why, and how you can prevent it happening again. Not to just reiterate that after they've reached out to take their carrot, they have to suffer the stick as well.

Parliament will be recalled for a day on Thursday so I can make a statement to parliament and we can hold a debate.

One day. That's what you're getting to explore the colossally complex issues that contributed to this breakdown. One day.

My politics are too complicated to express as a pithy placard slogan

A practical approach to welfare must begin with an understanding that citizens of our developed economy require a certain level of income simply to stay alive. In the absence of employment or charity, these citizens must choose between crime and death. It follows that any welfare payment less than or equal to the costs of this crime and the citizen's subsequent route through the justice system must be considered both an economic and moral good.

An amoral calculus

I am increasingly fixated on what I perceive to be an amoral calculus employed by those with great power or wealth in society – a calculus which is denied to the poor and powerless by laws they cannot take the risk of ignoring.

Take the drugs kingpin. There is no moral quandary for this person as to their trade. Like all businessmen the kingpin takes on a certain level of risk (albeit of a different nature from, for example, the property developer) in search of profit. There is a government-imposed disincentive to his business model – but in the cost-benefit analysis of an extremely lucrative and enduring trade, this disincentive is not practically different from a higher rate of tax. The descriptions of our statutes' attitudes to marijuana and tobacco are different, but mechanically and economically they are identical.

(Of course arguably the public economics of drug prohibition are all negative – resulting in a tax-free black market, the criminalisation of entrepreneurs, and massive public costs in policing and justice – while at least the tax disincentive applied to tobacco contributes to the public purse. But for more on that see anything written by Transform).

Similarly there are mainstream businesses. The most successful business is the one that finds the most efficient and sustainable path to profit. Take for example Boots, which of course has recently been under attack for its massive tax avoidance. Putting that issue briefly to one side, Boots is a fine example of an efficient and profitable business. It has expanded hugely across Britain, is now synonymous with pharmacy, and generally offers good products and services (let's ignore the homeopathy thing for now as well). Initially it grew organically, until it developed a strong enough capital base and went on to acquire other pharmacy chains (and for some reason, Halfords). This enhanced its economies of scale, with centralisation of management also offering efficiency savings. Boots is now a gravy train – any possible risk of expansion is easily dealt with by simply expanding into an existing local pharmacy. For Boots it is all benefit.

The cost is borne socially.

"The problem is that, considered as a labour force, the golems are capable of doing the work per day of one hundred and twenty thousand men."

"Think of what they could do for the city!" said Mr Cowslick of the Artificers' Guild.

"Well, yes. To begin with, they would put one hundred and twenty thousand men out of work."

– Terry Pratchett, Making Money

The social cost of greater efficiency is always greater unemployment. We have already agreed as a nation – implicitly, over successive governments of both left and right – to adopt an economic model dependent on constant (but hopefully low-level) unemployment. Understanding this, we must ethically include as part of that model some support for these unemployed – hence taxation and the welfare state.

Boots' calculus does not contain a moral dimension. It does not consider the non-financial implications of higher efficiency and higher unemployment (you may argue that those laid off by Boots are hired by other companies, but consider that in the long term this efficiency path is sought by all commercial businesses). This is not to say that there should be an explicit disincentive for businesses to make redundancies – simply that higher profits tend to come with a social cost, and businesses should be made to contribute to those costs. As it is, the companies that contribute most to this country's headline GDP are allowed to ignore the moral commitment it has to compensate for that social cost.

Commercial businesses are motivated almost entirely by profit. Of course there are higher order purposes – a business may consider its goal is to make great games, or provide excellent service, or anything of that kind. But as long as it is fulfilling that purpose, its incentives are costs and sales. The only organisations that must inherently consider society as a 'cost' are local and national government.

The benefits of inefficiency

Let's say there is a local authority that is working on its roads. It has identified 10 roads that need to be resurfaced and their underlying gas lines maintained. The most efficient way of doing this would be to shut the road, strip the surface, check the lines, then resurface the road. This is how a commercial business would do the job.

The best way for the local authority, however, is probably the opposite of that. Let's say that process would take 10 weeks – one week per road. Once the job is done, the workers hired have no more work to do. If eligible they will receive benefits – a direct cost to that local authority. They will no longer have discretionary income to spend on the high street – an indirect cost to that local authority. Some may turn to crime – another direct cost.

It is in the interests of the local authority, therefore, to continue to employ these people for as long as possible, at or below the costs they would otherwise suffer from their unemployment. This could well mean the job taking three weeks per road – one to resurface, one for the gas lines, then another to resurface again.

Within the rules

Profits can be considered as the rewards of risk. I mortgage everything I own – I build a successful pharmacy business. I risk jailtime – I push hash at a 200 percent mark-up. Judicial punishment is simply another form of risk.

Consider Thierry Henry's infamous handball, which knocked Ireland out of the 2010 World Cup tournament. This is perfectly within the rules of football – specifically rule 12, which states that a direct free kick should be awarded to the opposing team if a player handles the ball deliberately. Also by convention he should receive a red card. In this instance the risk paid off – all benefit, no cost. But clearly from interviews given afterwards there was no moral component in his decision.

The rules of football very clearly lay out the penalties for what ought to be considered cheating. The only thing I can think of that would break the rules of football would be to actually murder someone on the pitch – an action so far outside the rules that Fifa would probably have to form a special committee to work out what to do.

Similarly the laws of the land very clearly lay out the penalties for breaking the rules of society. If those with money and power choose to take these risks without any consideration of morality, surely those without may also take that risk?

This is how radicalisation happens

When businesses increase social costs and deliberately avoid contributing tax to rectify it, because there is no moral component the decision is all benefit and no cost. It is the purpose of our elected representatives to ensure a moral component is included in their calculus in the form of taxation – higher costs to society must come with higher costs to business. As our current government has shown no interest in doing this – in fact quite the opposite – it falls to citizens to introduce this cost to businesses' calculus through direct action.

There is no moral component to property damage. How can there be? Assuming no people are hurt by fallen glass – a condition easily fulfilled by even the most lackadaisical attitude to health and safety – what moral harm is caused? Of itself, I would argue that low-level property damage can be a social good when correctly directed. The broken window fallacy observes that the money used to repair such damage would otherwise be spent more productively elsewhere – but for big businesses this is a demonstrable untruth. Far better that more workers are hired at the minimum wage to repair damage than higher profits are diverted overseas – away from those who contributed to them, be that by shopping with that company or enduring the trials of unemployment because of them.