Following a prolonged banking crisis, city riots and looting, a political expenses scandal, hacking scandal and a series of public protests, people are asking what went wrong? A financial crisis simply doesn't explain the larger 'moral crisis' that politicians are trying to tackle in public forums. David Cameron came to power promising to fix the UK's sick society and lead 'Broken 'Britain towards a 'Big Society'. But why exactly was Britain broken? What underlying theme links all of these crises and scandals?
The answer seems to be Greed. It influenced reckless speculation in the banking sector, theft from the taxpayer in the expenses scandal, looting from shops during the riots, over-ambitious journalists, ever-increasing income inequality and is now being confronted by the Occupy movements, which are enjoying strong and ever-growing public and religious backing.
The other big question is where did it begin? When did we start prioritising the individual so far ahead of society and when did it become ok to focus exclusively on personal gain and personal wealth?
Excessive greed is a cultural issue and therefore takes a generation to truly mature. Older generations complain that it simply wasn't like this in the post-war period. People supposedly had more respect and empathy for each other right up until the 80's. If this is the case, something must have fundamentally changed in the late 70's and early 80's. At some date there must have been new social paradigm, a fundamental shift in public thinking towards a more selfish outlook.
The likely culprits for this are 27th October 1986 and 31st October 1987. The first being the 'Big Bang' of banking deregulation in the City of London, where it became both possible and fashionable to get rich at any cost, to pursue only profits and use excessive levels of debt to do so. The second being the date that Margaret Thatcher famously stated that 'there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families'. This statement underpinned the government's message to the public, that the individual is more important than society and that it is ok to be greedy.
The modern Conservative party has effected a large turnaround on this ideology, with their 'Big Society' and 2010 electoral manifesto that was titled 'Your invitation to the Government of Britain'. Although widely attacked as hypocritical, since the Conservatives are known to favour a smaller state, it does signal a powerful shift in centre-right thinking - that there is such thing as society. The problem is, how exactly do they pursue this new agenda with no budget available, and does their traditional party base even really believe in it? This is a serious problem for the government, because 'less greed' suggests that the wealthy should not be demanding hugely disproportionate salaries and should also be willing to pay higher taxes to invest in a better society - but lower taxes and the ability to be remunerated fully for your success are the two pillars of Conservative policy.
The battle lines have been drawn. The arena for this hugely influential debate is how to tackle the culture of greed without harming enterprise or reducing the incentives for success. The Conservatives are likely to blame a culture of assumed 'entitlement without obligation', turning the spotlight on benefit-cheats and lazy middle-class youngsters. Labour will look to argue that the biggest problems occurred at the 'top' of society and that the cuts impact the people who least deserve to be punished.
There will be one escapable fact throughout. We are in a prolonged economic stagnation that has resulted from a problem caused within banking, precipitated by greed. Banks will return to making big profits and paying large salaries whilst austerity cuts continue. If the banking sector is not seen to be 'punished' for generating profits from the indebtedness of individuals and transferring the losses onto the taxpayer, dissatisfaction and public unrest will only increase. Whether or not the coalition government is capable of sending this signal before the next election will almost certainly decide its result.
