DISKURSER

Udgangspunktet for diskursanalysen er, at  det samfund, vi ”ser for os”, er bestemt af det sprog, vi bruger om det. Diskurs er sprogbrug anvendt på samfundet. Samfundet eksisterer ikke i sig selv, kun igennem vores iagttagelse og den sprogbrug, iagttagelsen beskrives med. Verden dannes for os igennem sproget. Det er udgangspunktet for diskursanalysens måde at se verden på.
    Nogle ord er abstrakte, f.eks. ”demokrati”. Nogle ord er konkrete, f.eks. stol. Vi kan se en konkret stol og flytte rundt med den. Vi kan ikke se noget konkret, der svarer til begrebet ”demokrati”. Der er ikke her noget konkret, vi kan flytte rundt i rummet. Men vi kan påvirke andres demokratiholdninger via en diskurs om demokrati.
   Vi kan se en arbejdsløs person, men vi ser kun personen som ”arbejdsløs”, når den sproglige etiket ”arbejdsløs” er hæftet på personen. ”Arbejdsløshed” som begreb ser vi ikke. Det er jo kun ”arbejdsløshed”, fordi vi bruger sproget på en bestemt måde. Den ”arbejdsløse” er på en måde i arbejde/beskæftigelse, når vedkommende reparerer sin motorcykel. Men det tæller ikke som arbejde i officiel arbejdsmarkedsmæssig forstand. Om personen ”arbejder” eller ”ikke-arbejder” bestemmes altså sprogligt i diskursen.

”Arbejdsløshed” er det, man kalder ”floating signifiers” (flydende bestemmere). Brugen afhænger af den, der bruger ordene, og af sammenhængen de bruges i. Ordet ”demokrati” blev brugt på en anden måde i et såkaldt ”Folkedemokrati” i Østeuropa før 1989, end det bliver brugt i Vesteuropa i dag.

I en diskurs lægger man sig fast på en bestemt måde at definere ordene og bruge sproget på. Det er man nødt til, fordi diskursen bruges til at kommunikere noget til andre eller påvirke dem på en bestemt måde. Den, der bestemmer diskursen kan komme til at bestemme den samfundsmæssige udvikling eller dele af den.

Man taler om en hegemonisk diskurs som en diskurs, der har vundet herredømme (hegemoni = herredømme).
    Hvis man f.eks. ser på diskurser om arbejdsløshed, så vil nogle hæfte sig ved ”Dovne Robert” fænomenet, dvs de arbejdsløse gider ikke arbejde, mens andre vil se på, at de arbejdsløse ikke kan få et job, fordi den økonomiske aktivitet i samfundet ikke er stor nok til, at der er jobs til alle. Hvis den første diskurs vinder mere frem end den anden, kan det evt. bruges til at skære ned på arbejdsløshedsdagpengene. Folk vil forstå det, fordi de er mere påvirket af diskursen, der siger, at de ”arbejdsløse driver den af”, end den, der siger, at de arbejdsløse er ”uden skyld i, at der ikke er jobs at få”.  

Vigtige ord i diskurser:

NØGLEORD  (nodalpunkter), som står i modsætning til nøgleord i konkurrerende diskurser
FORBUNDNE LIGEVÆRDSORD  (ækvivalensbegreber/ækvivalenskæder), som understøtter diskursen
MODSTÅENDE BEGREBSPAR AF INKLUSION/EKSKLUSION (”vi”/”dem”)

I diskurserne i boksen er de modsatstående nøgleord yde (= være i arbejde) og nyde (være arbejdsløs og på understøttelse/ kontanthjælp).  Der er forbundne ord som arbejde (det modsatte af arbejdsløshed).
   ”Dovne Robert” diskursen påvirker holdningsmæssigt ved brugen af negative ækvivalensord som skod-arbejde, samle klemmer, pedel (nedværdigende betegnelse, jvf at McDonalds selv betegner dem som assistenter, partnere, interessenter, stjerner m.v.). Det siges ikke direkte, men de negative ord står som om, de  er  citeret fra Dovne Robert selv. Det fremgår ikke, om han rent faktisk har sagt lige præcis sådan i direkte citat. Der stilles til sidst nogle retoriske spørgsmål, som ethvert fornuftigt tænkende menneske må kunne se det rigtige svar på. Men nej, det kan Robert ikke!

I den anden tekst omtales villigheden til at arbejde positivt som konkrete beskæftigelser. Arbejdet - ja endda en hvilken som helst form for arbejde - fremhæves som positivt af arbejdsløse, som modsætning til ikke-arbejde, som er at gå hjemme og ”lave ingenting”. Gennem denne modstilling af modsatte begrebspar omkring arbejde-ikke-arbejde, og at det er arbejdsløse, der citeres, laves meget mere positiv diskurs om ledige. Vi kan nu ånde lettet op. Det er heldigvis ikke alle de arbejdsløse, der er som Robert.

Noget af de afgørende ved en diskurs er imidlertid ofte, hvad der ikke siges. Når man vælger en bestemt diskurs, har man jo fravalgt at sige andre ting. Det kunne jo f.eks. tænkes, at Dovne Robert var blevet træt af al medieomtalen og var begyndt at optræde som Rasmus Modsat. Hvis man anvendte en anden italesættelse af hans problemer over for ham, er det tænkeligt, at han ville reagere anderledes, -  også diskursivt.

Moderne politikere lever i en politisk virkelighed, hvor medierne ofte tvinger dem til at formulere sig i one-liners (enkle, korte budskaber formuleret i få sætninger). Det er en af betingelserne i den politikkens medialisering, vi lever i. En af de politikere, der har formuleret en af de mest omdiskuterede one-liners i nyere tid, er den britiske premierminister Margaret Thatcher (premierminister 1979-91). Det var hendes bemærkning om samfundet:  there is no such thing as society.  There are individual men and women. 

Bemærkningen kan lægge op til mange fortolkninger, og det hænger naturligvis sammen med, at ordet ”society” (samfund)  i høj grad er det, man kalder a floating signifier (”en flydende betegner”). Hun går ind og udlægger begrebet diskursivt og siger, at når man har sagt, at ordet indebærer en opfattelse af sammenhæng imellem samfundsborgerne, ja, ligefrem solidaritet, så siger hun, at direkte oversat, vil hun forstå samfund som en samling af individer, hvor der ikke er angivet noget om social sammenhæng og solidaritet imellem dem. Dermed kan udsagnet udlægges som ultraliberalisme: Samfundet er en samling af atomiserede individer, der ikke i sig selv behøver at være solidariske med hinanden.
    Men det er måske ikke lige det, hun har ment, når sætningen sættes ind i den sammenhæng, ordene blev sagt i:

‘I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first… There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.’( http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/margaret-thatcher-in-quotes/)

Eks:

David Cameron  Downing Street 10 Statement on UK Riots 10 August 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8693134/UK-riots-David-Camerons-statement-in-full.html

Når man skal lave en diskursanalyse på denne tekst (teksten nedenfor), kan man passende starte med at lave en wordle (http://www.wordle.net/create ), som viser i en billedfil (sat ind nedenfor) hyppigheden af forskellige ord i teksten.

Læg mærke til, at de to hyppigst brugte ord er ”police” og ”people”. Man kan ikke altid være så heldig. Ofte vil de almindeligste ord kunne være forbinderord, bestemt artikel, o.lign.  (Sådanne ord kan man pille ud, når man laver wordlen).
    Men her er to ord, som med det samme er afslørende for den dominerende diskurs.
    Det kan beskrives som en lov-og-orden (”police”) diskurs, og det er en inkluderende diskurs (”people”, som vi alle må forventes at tilhøre, bortset fra the thugs (bøllerne), der har lave al uordenen.

 En række ord støtter den dominerende diskurs, f.eks. arrests, criminal, courts, justice, sentence, prison, thuggery, consequences, etc.
 Det inkluderende people-sprogelement, der opfordrer til sammenhold imod bøllerne, indbefatter ord som community,  Britain, etc.

''Since yesterday there are more police on the street, more people have been arrested and more people are being charged and prosecuted.

Last night there were around 16,000 police on the streets of London, and there is evidence a more robust approach to policing in London resulted in a much quieter night across the capital.

And let me pay tribute to the bravery of those police officers and indeed everyone working for our emergency services.

In total there have been 750 arrests in London since Saturday, with more than 160 people being charged.

Today, major police operations are under way as I speak to arrest the criminals who were not picked up last night but who were picked up on closed circuit television cameras.

Related Articles

Picture by picture, these criminals are being identified, arrested and we will not let any phoney concerns about human rights get in the way of the publication of these pictures and arrest of these individuals.

As I speak, sentences are also being passed, courts sat through the night last night and will do again tonight.

It is for the courts to sentence but I would expect anyone convicted of violent disorder will be sent to prison.

We needed a fight back and a fight back is under way.

We have seen the worst of Britain but I also believe we have seen some of the best of Britain: the million people who have signed up on Facebook to support the police; communities coming together in the clean-up operations.

But there is absolutely no room for complacency and there is much more to be done.

Overnight we saw the same appalling violence and thuggery that we have seen in London in new cities, including Birmingham, Manchester and Nottingham.

In the West Midlands, three men were killed in a hit-and-run in Birmingham and the police are working round the clock to get to the bottom of what happened and bring the perpetrator to justice.

In Birmingham, over 160 arrests were made.

In Salford, up to 1,000 youths were attacking the police at the height of the disturbance.

Across Greater Manchester, more than 100 arrests were made and, in Nottinghamshire, Canning Circus police station was firebombed and over 80 arrests were made.

This continued violence is simply not acceptable and it will be stopped.

We will not put up with this in our country, we will not allow a culture of fear to exist on our streets.

Let me be clear, at Cobra this morning we agreed full contingency planning is going ahead.

Whatever resources the police need they will get, whatever tactics police feel they need to employ, they will have legal backing to do so.

We will do whatever is necessary to restore law and order on to our streets.

Every contingency is being looked at, nothing is off the table.

The police are already authorised to use baton rounds and we agreed at Cobra that while they are not currently needed, we now have in place contingency plans for water cannon to be available at 24 hours' notice.

It is all too clear that we have a big problem with gangs in our country. For too long there had been a lack of focus on the complete lack of respect shown by these groups of thugs.

I'm clear that they are in no way representative of the vast majority of young people in our country who despise them, frankly, as much as the rest of us do.

But there are pockets of our society that are not just broken but frankly sick.

When we see children as young as 12 and 13 looting and laughing, when we see the disgusting sight of an injured young man with people pretending to help him while they are robbing him, it is clear that there are things that are badly wrong with our society.

For me, the root cause of this mindless selfishness is the same thing I have spoken about for years.

It is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society, people allowed to feel the world owes them something, that their rights outweigh their responsibilities and their actions do not have consequences.

Well, they do have consequences.

We need to have a clearer code of standards and values that we expect people to live by and stronger penalties if they cross the line.

Restoring a stronger sense of responsibility across our society in every town, in every street, in every estate is something I am determined to do.

Tomorrow Cobra will meet again, Cabinet will meet, I will make a statement to Parliament, I'll set out in full the measures that we will take to help businesses that have been affected, to help rebuild communities, to help rebuild the shops and buildings that have been damaged, to make sure the homeless are rehoused, to help local authorities in all the ways that are necessary.

But today, right now, the priority is still clear: we will take every action necessary to bring order back to our streets.''

After Riots Speech (15 August 2011)

Cameron forholdt sig til optøjerne I en stor after riots speech.  (Nedenfor).  Wordlen er vist ovenover. Og det er interessant at se, at “PEOPLE” er det mest brugte ord. Talen indeholder mange af de samme elementer som den foregående, men der er nu en endnu større understregning af sammenholdet (jvf f.eks. slutningen på talen).  Den dominerende diskurs er et velkendt Cameron-tema, som den moderat konservative partileder allerede anslog i valgkampen, der bragte ham til magten i 2010, nemlig ”BROKEN BRITAIN AND HOW TO MEND IT”.  Broken Britain er de samfundsmæssige opløsningstendenser, som Cameron mener at se omkring sig: Familieopløsning, øget kriminalitet, fremmedgørelse i storbyernes forstæder, etc.  Ordet ”moral” har en fremtrædende placering i ordkæderne, der understøtter den dominerende diskurs:

No, this was about behaviour...
...people showing indifference to right and wrong...
...people with a twisted moral code...
...people with a complete absence of self-restraint.

Samtidig afvises, at regeringens welfare cuts kunne spille en rolle.

 De unge har en moralsk pligt til at opføre sig ordentligt. Samfundsstøtterne og folket har en pligt til at bakke op. Det, der skete var ikke rationelt forståeligt. Det var ”sickening acts”. Det var udtryk for en slags iboende ondskab, og derfor er det relevant at forholde sig moralsk til det.
    I kontrast hertil kunne man se Labourlederen Ed Milliband holde taler, hvor han også afviste adfærden omkring butiskplyndringer og vold som uantagelig, men samtidig lagde op til en slags forståelse af  mulige baggrundsårsager. Diskurserne er forskellige hos henholdsvis den moderate konservative og den moderate socialist.

Cameron-tale:

It is time for our country to take stock.

Last week we saw some of the most sickening acts on our streets.

I'll never forget talking to Maurice Reeves, whose family had run the Reeves furniture store in Croydon for generations.

This was an 80 year old man who had seen the business he had loved, that his family had built up for generations, simply destroyed.

A hundred years of hard work, burned to the ground in a few hours.

But last week we didn't just see the worst of the British people; we saw the best of them too.

The ones who called themselves riot wombles and headed down to the hardware stores to pick up brooms and start the clean-up.

The people who linked arms together to stand and defend their homes, their businesses.

The policemen and women and fire officers who worked long, hard shifts, sleeping in corridors then going out again to put their life on the line.

Everywhere I've been this past week, in Salford, Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon, people of every background, colour and religion have shared the same moral outrage and hurt for our country.

Because this is Britain.

This is a great country of good people.

Those thugs we saw last week do not represent us, nor do they represent our young people - and they will not drag us down.

But now that the fires have been put out and the smoke has cleared, the question hangs in the air: 'Why? How could this happen on our streets and in our country?'

Of course, we mustn't oversimplify.

There were different things going on in different parts of the country.

In Tottenham some of the anger was directed at the police.

In Salford there was some organised crime, a calculated attack on the forces of order.

But what we know for sure is that in large parts of the country this was just pure criminality.

So as we begin the necessary processes of inquiry, investigation, listening and learning: let's be clear.

These riots were not about race: the perpetrators and the victims were white, black and Asian.

These riots were not about government cuts: they were directed at high street stores, not Parliament.

And these riots were not about poverty: that insults the millions of people who, whatever the hardship, would never dream of making others suffer like this.

No, this was about behaviour...

...people showing indifference to right and wrong...

...people with a twisted moral code...

...people with a complete absence of self-restraint.

Now I know as soon as I use words like 'behaviour' and 'moral' people will say - what gives politicians the right to lecture us?

Of course we're not perfect.

But politicians shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality...

...this has actually helped to cause the social problems we see around us.

We have been too unwilling for too long to talk about what is right and what is wrong.

We have too often avoided saying what needs to be said - about everything from
marriage to welfare to common courtesy.

Sometimes the reasons for that are noble - we don't want to insult or hurt people.

Sometimes they're ideological - we don't feel it's the job of the state to try and pass judgement on people's behaviour or engineer personal morality.

And sometimes they're just human - we're not perfect beings ourselves and we don't want to look like hypocrites.

So you can't say that marriage and commitment are good things - for fear of alienating single mothers.

You don't deal properly with children who repeatedly fail in school - because you're worried about being accused of stigmatising them.

You're wary of talking about those who have never worked and never want to work - in case you're charged with not getting it, being middle class and out of touch.

In this risk-free ground of moral neutrality there are no bad choices, just different lifestyles.

People aren't the architects of their own problems, they are victims of circumstance.

'Live and let live' becomes 'do what you please.'

Well actually, what last week has shown is that this moral neutrality, this relativism - it's not going to cut it any more.

One of the biggest lessons of these riots is that we've got to talk honestly about behaviour and then act - because bad behaviour has literally arrived on people's doorsteps.

And we can't shy away from the truth anymore.

So this must be a wake-up call for our country.

Social problems that have been festering for decades have exploded in our face.

Now, just as people last week wanted criminals robustly confronted on our street, so they want to see these social problems taken on and defeated.

Our security fightback must be matched by a social fightback.

We must fight back against the attitudes and assumptions that have brought parts of our society to this shocking state.

We know what's gone wrong: the question is, do we have the determination to put it right?

Do we have the determination to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations?

Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences.

Children without fathers. Schools without discipline. Reward without effort.

Crime without punishment. Rights without responsibilities. Communities without control.

Some of the worst aspects of human nature tolerated, indulged - sometimes even incentivised - by a state and its agencies that in parts have become literally de-moralised.

So do we have the determination to confront all this and turn it around?

I have the very strong sense that the responsible majority of people in this country not only have that determination; they are crying out for their government to act upon it.

And I can assure you, I will not be found wanting.

In my very first act as leader of this party I signalled my personal priority: to mend our broken society.

That passion is stronger today than ever.

Yes, we have had an economic crisis to deal with, clearing up the terrible mess we inherited, and we are not out of those woods yet - not by a long way.

But I repeat today, as I have on many occasions these last few years, that the reason I am in politics is to build a bigger, stronger society.

Stronger families. Stronger communities. A stronger society.

This is what I came into politics to do - and the shocking events of last week have renewed in me that drive.

So I can announce today that over the next few weeks, I and ministers from across the coalition government will review every aspect of our work to mend our broken society...

...on schools, welfare, families, parenting, addiction, communities...

...on the cultural, legal, bureaucratic problems in our society too:

...from the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights that has undermined personal
responsibility...

...to the obsession with health and safety that has eroded people's willingness to act according to common sense.

We will review our work and consider whether our plans and programmes are big enough and bold enough to deliver the change that I feel this country now wants to see.

Government cannot legislate to change behaviour, but it is wrong to think the State is a bystander.

Because people's behaviour does not happen in a vacuum: it is affected by the rules government sets and how they are enforced...

...by the services government provides and how they are delivered...

...and perhaps above all by the signals government sends about the kinds of behaviour
that are encouraged and rewarded.

So yes, the broken society is back at the top of my agenda.

And as we review our policies in the weeks ahead, today I want to set out the priority areas I will be looking at, and give you a sense of where I think we need to raise our

ambitions.

First and foremost, we need a security fight-back.

We need to reclaim our streets from the thugs who didn't just spring out of nowhere
last week, but who've been making lives a misery for years.

Now I know there have been questions in people's minds about my approach to law and order.

Well, I don't want there to be any doubt.

Nothing in this job is more important to me than keeping people safe.

And it is obvious to me that to do that we've got to be tough, we've got to be robust, we've got to score a clear line between right and wrong right through the heart of this country - in every street and in every community.

That starts with a stronger police presence - pounding the beat, deterring crime, ready to re-group and crack down at the first sign of trouble.

Let me be clear: under this government we will always have enough police officers to be able to scale up our deployments in the way we saw last week.

To those who say this means we need to abandon our plans to make savings in police budgets, I say you are missing the point.

The point is that what really matters in this fight-back is the amount of time the police actually spend on the streets.

For years we've had a police force suffocated by bureaucracy, officers spending the majority of their time filling in forms and stuck behind desks.

This won't be fixed by pumping money in and keeping things basically as they've been.

As the Home Secretary will explain tomorrow, it will be fixed by completely changing the way the police work.

Scrapping the paperwork that holds them back, getting them out on the streets where people can see them and criminals can fear them.

Our reforms mean that the police are going to answer directly to the people.

You want more tough, no-nonsense policing?

You want to make sure the police spend more time confronting the thugs in your neighbourhood and less time meeting targets by stopping motorists?

You want the police out patrolling your streets instead of sitting behind their desks?

Elected police and crime commissioners are part of the answer: they will provide that direct accountability so you can finally get what you want when it comes to policing.

The point of our police reforms is not to save money, not to change things for the sake of it - but to fight crime.

And in the light of last week it's clear that we now have to go even further, even faster in beefing up the powers and presence of the police.

Already we've given backing to measures like dispersal orders, we're toughening curfew powers, we're giving police officers the power to remove face coverings from rioters, we're looking at giving them more powers to confiscate offenders' property - and over the coming months you're going to see even more.

It's time for something else too.

A concerted, all-out war on gangs and gang culture.

This isn't some side issue.

It is a major criminal disease that has infected streets and estates across our country.

Stamping out these gangs is a new national priority.

Last week I set up a cross-government programme to look at every aspect of this problem.

We will fight back against gangs, crime and the thugs who make people's lives hell and we will fight back hard.

The last front in that fight is proper punishment.

On the radio last week they interviewed one of the young men who'd been looting in Manchester.

He said he was going to carry on until he got caught.

This will be my first arrest, he said.

The prisons were already overflowing so he'd just get an ASBO, and he could live with that.

Well, we've got to show him and everyone like him that the party's over.

I know that when politicians talk about punishment and tough sentencing people roll their eyes.

Yes, last week we saw the criminal justice system deal with an unprecedented challenge: the courts sat through the night and dispensed swift, firm justice.

We saw that the system was on the side of the law-abiding majority.

But confidence in the system is still too low.

And believe me - I understand the anger with the level of crime in our country today and I am determined we sort it out and restore people's faith that if someone hurts our society, if they break the rules in our society, then society will punish them for it.

And we will tackle the hard core of people who persistently reoffend and blight the lives of their communities.

So no-one should doubt this government's determination to be tough on crime and to mount an effective security fight-back.

But we need much more than that.

We need a social fight-back too, with big changes right through our society.

Let me start with families.

The question people asked over and over again last week was 'where are the parents?

Why aren't they keeping the rioting kids indoors?'

Tragically that's been followed in some cases by judges rightly lamenting: "why don't the parents even turn up when their children are in court?"

Well, join the dots and you have a clear idea about why some of these young people
were behaving so terribly.

Either there was no one at home, they didn't much care or they'd lost control.

Families matter.

I don't doubt that many of the rioters out last week have no father at home.

Perhaps they come from one of the neighbourhoods where it's standard for children to have a mum and not a dad...

...where it's normal for young men to grow up without a male role model, looking to the streets for their father figures, filled up with rage and anger.

So if we want to have any hope of mending our broken society, family and parenting is where we've got to start.

I've been saying this for years, since before I was Prime Minister, since before I was leader of the Conservative Party.

So: from here on I want a family test applied to all domestic policy.

If it hurts families, if it undermines commitment, if it tramples over the values that keeps people together, or stops families from being together, then we shouldn't do it.

More than that, we've got to get out there and make a positive difference to the way families work, the way people bring up their children...

...and we've got to be less sensitive to the charge that this is about interfering or nannying.

We are working on ways to help improve parenting - well now I want that work accelerated, expanded and implemented as quickly as possible.

This has got to be right at the top of our priority list.

And we need more urgent action, too, on the families that some people call 'problem', others call 'troubled'.

The ones that everyone in their neighbourhood knows and often avoids.

Last December I asked Emma Harrison to develop a plan to help get these families on track.

It became clear to me earlier this year that - as can so often happen - those plans were being held back by bureaucracy.

So even before the riots happened, I asked for an explanation.

Now that the riots have happened I will make sure that we clear away the red tape and the bureaucratic wrangling, and put rocket boosters under this programme...

...with a clear ambition that within the lifetime of this Parliament we will turn around the lives of the 120,000 most troubled families in the country.

The next part of the social fight-back is what happens in schools.

We need an education system which reinforces the message that if you do the wrong thing you'll be disciplined...

...but if you work hard and play by the rules you will succeed.

This isn't a distant dream.

It's already happening in schools like Woodside High in Tottenham and Mossbourne in Hackney.

They expect high standards from every child and make no excuses for failure to work hard.

They foster pride through strict uniform and behaviour policies.

And they provide an alternative to street culture by showing how anyone can get up and get on if they apply themselves.

Kids from Hammersmith and Hackney are now going to top universities thanks to these schools.

We need many more like them which is why we are creating more academies...

...why the people behind these success stories are now opening free schools...

...and why we have pledged to turn round the 200 weakest secondaries and the 200
weakest primaries in the next year.

But with the failures in our education system so deep, we can't just say 'these are our plans and we believe in them, let's sit back while they take effect'.

I now want us to push further, faster.

Are we really doing enough to ensure that great new schools are set up in the poorest
areas, to help the children who need them most?

And why are we putting up with the complete scandal of schools being allowed to fail, year after year?

If young people have left school without being able to read or write, why shouldn't that school be held more directly accountable?

Yes, these questions are already being asked across government but what happened last week gives them a new urgency - and we need to act on it.

Just as we want schools to be proud of we want everyone to feel proud of their communities.

We need a sense of social responsibility at the heart of every community.

Yet the truth is that for too long the big bossy bureaucratic state has drained it away.

It's usurped local leadership with its endless Whitehall diktats.

It's frustrated local organisers with its rules and regulations

And it's denied local people any real kind of say over what goes on where they live.

Is it any wonder that many people don't feel they have a stake in their community?

This has got to change. And we're already taking steps to change it.

That's why we want executive Mayors in our twelve biggest cities...

...because strong civic leadership can make a real difference in creating that sense of belonging.

We're training an army of community organisers to work in our most deprived neighbourhoods...

...because we're serious about encouraging social action and giving people a real chance to improve the community in which they live.

We're changing the planning rules and giving people the right to take over local assets.

But the question I want to ask now is this.
Are these changes big enough to foster the sense of belonging we want to see?

Are these changes bold enough to spread the social responsibility we need right across our communities, especially in our cities?

That's what we're going to be looking at urgently over the coming weeks.

Because we won't get things right in our country if we don't get them right in our communities.

But one of the biggest parts of this social fight-back is fixing the welfare system.

For years we've had a system that encourages the worst in people - that incites laziness, that excuses bad behaviour, that erodes self-discipline, that discourages hard work...

...above all that drains responsibility away from people.

We talk about moral hazard in our financial system - where banks think they can act recklessly because the state will always bail them out...

...well this is moral hazard in our welfare system - people thinking they can be as irresponsible as they like because the state will always bail them out.

We're already addressing this through the Welfare Reform Bill going through parliament.

But I'm not satisfied that we're doing all we can.

I want us to look at toughening up the conditions for those who are out of work and receiving benefits...

...and speeding up our efforts to get all those who can work back to work

Work is at the heart of a responsible society.

So getting more of our young people into jobs, or up and running in their own businesses is a critical part of how we strengthen responsibility in our society.

Our Work Programme is the first step, with local authorities, charities, social enterprises and businesses all working together to provide the best possible help to get a job.

It leaves no one behind - including those who have been on welfare for years.

But there is more we need to do, to boost self-employment and enterprise...

...because it's only by getting our young people into work that we can build an ownership society in which everyone feels they have a stake.

As we consider these questions of attitude and behaviour, the signals that government sends, and the incentives it creates...

...we inevitably come to the question of the Human Rights Act and the culture associated with it.

Let me be clear: in this country we are proud to stand up for human rights, at home and abroad. It is part of the British tradition.

But what is alien to our tradition - and now exerting such a corrosive influence on behaviour and morality...

...is the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights in a way that has undermined personal responsibility.

We are attacking this problem from both sides.

We're working to develop a way through the morass by looking at creating our own British Bill of Rights.

And we will be using our current chairmanship of the Council of Europe to seek agreement to important operational changes to the European Convention on Human Rights.

But this is all frustratingly slow.

The truth is, the interpretation of human rights legislation has exerted a chilling effect on public sector organisations, leading them to act in ways that fly in the face of common sense, offend our sense of right and wrong, and undermine responsibility.

It is exactly the same with health and safety - where regulations have often been twisted out of all recognition into a culture where the words 'health and safety' are lazily trotted out to justify all sorts of actions and regulations that damage our social fabric.

So I want to make something very clear: I get it. This stuff matters.

And as we urgently review the work we're doing on the broken society, judging whether it's ambitious enough - I want to make it clear that there will be no holds barred...

...and that most definitely includes the human rights and health and safety culture.

Many people have long thought that the answer to these questions of social behaviour is to bring back national service.

In many ways I agree...

...and that's why we are actually introducing something similar - National Citizen Service.

It's a non-military programme that captures the spirit of national service.

It takes sixteen year-olds from different backgrounds and gets them to work together.

They work in their communities, whether that's coaching children to play football, visiting old people at the hospital or offering a bike repair service to the community.

It shows young people that doing good can feel good.

The real thrill is from building things up, not tearing them down.

Team-work, discipline, duty, decency: these might sound old-fashioned words but they are part of the solution to this very modern problem of alienated, angry young

people.

Restoring those values is what National Citizen Service is all about.

I passionately believe in this idea.

It's something we've been developing for years.

Thousands of teenagers are taking part this summer.

The plan is for thirty thousand to take part next year.

But in response to the riots I will say this.

This should become a great national effort.

Let's make National Citizen Service available to all sixteen year olds as a rite of passage.

We can do that if we work together: businesses, charities, schools and social enterprises...

...and in the months ahead I will put renewed effort into making it happen.

Today I've talked a lot about what the government is going to do.

But let me be clear:

This social fight-back is not a job for government on its own.

Government doesn't run the businesses that create jobs and turn lives around.

Government doesn't make the video games or print the magazines or produce the music that tells young people what's important in life.

Government can't be on every street and in every estate, instilling the values that matter.

This is a problem that has deep roots in our society, and it's a job for all of our society to help fix it.

In the highest offices, the plushest boardrooms, the most influential jobs, we need to think about the example we are setting.

Moral decline and bad behaviour is not limited to a few of the poorest parts of our society.

In the banking crisis, with MPs' expenses, in the phone hacking scandal, we have seen some of the worst cases of greed, irresponsibility and entitlement.

The restoration of responsibility has to cut right across our society.

Because whatever the arguments, we all belong to the same society, and we all have a stake in making it better.

There is no 'them' and 'us' - there is us.

We are all in this together, and we will mend our broken society - together.