Tomorrow’s world

Do we have a feral youth? It’s a question that many have asked since riots erupted across the country over the summer. Images of young people destroying their own communities, presented a challenge to those of us who have long rejected the stereotype of the feral hooded youth. Yet, while no analysis can excuse such wanton violence, it would equally be wrong to reduce these events, as the Prime Minister has, to “criminality pure and simple.” Labour’s former Home Secretary Charles Clarke was right to rebut David Cameron’s over-simplified conclusions in an article for The Evening Standard. “Criminality”, he argued, “is neither ‘pure’ nor ‘simple’.”

This is surely correct. As IPPR Director, Nick Pearce, outlines in the essay in our Autumn edition of Anticipations, “unless you believe that the riots were simply random acts of criminal violence, then some attempt must be made to explain why they happened and what can be done to prevent them happening again.” Of course we need a robust response and should not shy away from punishing those who have broken the law. However, it is also important, as Pearce points out, not to ignore the fact that most of the areas affected had high rates of youth unemployment and low levels of educational attainment.

This is not an excuse for violence and it would be wrong to argue that the disorder occurred as a direct result of policies such as the scrapping of EMA. Many of the rioters were not young at all; many more already had criminal convictions. However, it must also be true that only people with no aspirations for, or connection to, their communities are willing to set them alight.

There are important lessons for Labour here.  While New Labour’s focus on modernisation was vital for reforming our public services, the party had too little to say about community itself. This is now starting to be rectified and it is crucial that Labour continues to avoid pandering, as the government has, to those who talk of ‘moral decline’. The party must focus instead on practical ways to strengthen civil society from the bottom up.

London Citizens community organiser, Emmanuel Gotoro, outlines a powerful example of how this can be achieved. The CitySafe Havens initiative, established following the murder of teenager Jimmy Mizen in 2008, successfully brings together young people, police and shopkeepers to tackle local violence and anti-social behaviour. It centres upon the reporting of 100% of incidents and on the idea that strong relationships are the bedrock of community. The CitySafe campaign serves as a pertinent reminder that, far from being feral, many of our most active and civic-minded citizens are young people.

That’s not to say that we should ignore the vital role that the police have to play in all this. Safety and security must always be the overriding priority for any government and Yvette Cooper is right to highlight in this edition’s interview that effective policing is crucial to maintaining this. Cooper offers a devastating critique of the coalition’s approach to law and order, pointing to the evident contradiction between spending well over £100 million on Police and Crime Commissions while at the same time cutting the policing budget by 20%. Strong communities need properly resourced police. Just ask the young people campaigning with London Citizens.

We do not have a feral youth. Most young people are hard working, socially-conscious and responsible individuals – just like the rest of society. The lesson of the riots is not that our young are out of control, but rather that in some parts of the country, in areas of low aspiration, society has grown weak. In our effort to reweave the fabric of these communities we could do worse than look again at the opportunities available to our young people.

Now is the time for a fundamental rethink of youth policy.

James Green is Anticipations Editor and a Fabian Society Executive member

• You can read our online taster edition of the Autumn 2011 edition of Anticipations here. The full edition of Anticipations is only available to Young Fabian members. Joining couldn’t be easier and six months membership costs just £5. Click here for more information on joining the Young Fabians

Responding to the riots – Insights from Brixton

Tony Blair asked us to reject the idea that Britain is broken. However, the Young Fabians – never to accept any one view without question, debate and a few committee meetings - thought that further investigation was and is necessary. Certainly, there was blatant opportunist criminality in the youth riots and, likely, a small minority who operate ‘beyond the pale’ involved. But the scale, spread and nature of the unrest does seem to indicate something more; something wrong with our society. A very large number of young people have demonstrated a lack of connection to, or investment in, their communities and a separation from the norms of society. It would be wrong to be complacent about this challenge.

Of course, the issues can’t be looked at in isolation. The roots are in education, in the economy, in housing, in public service provision, and elsewhere. But just because something is complicated isn’t a justification for giving up on constructive solutions.

Over the last five months, Joani Reid has been leading the Young Fabian “Securing the Future of the Next Generation” Policy Commission to provide analysis of the broader problems hitting British youth.

As part of the effort to analyse the issues, last week, the Young Fabians teamed up with A4e to visit Brixton to try and better understand the skills and employment challenges in the area. Myself, Joel Mullan, Vincenzo Rampulla and Joani Reid all took part in the site visit and held a series of interviews at the Brixton A4e training centre.

What follows is not an exhaustive analysis, but a short personal report from what felt like a very worthwhile visit – and something that the current Young Fabian Executive would like to repeat, with other partners and other areas.

Firstly – without comparing it to its competitors (because we didn’t visit any on this occasion) – I, for one, was very impressed by A4e as an outfit.

There was a huge amount of optimism and energy in the building. I suggested that a lack of jobs in the economy might be an insurmountable problem for the centre, but they went on to tell me about all the vacancy relationships they’d built up to secure job opportunities. For example, a recently secured relationship with WHSmith enabled them to link forthcoming major recruitment rounds with training programmes in local areas.

I was also impressed by A4e’s emphasis on making sure the people of an area benefitted from big investment projects. It was clear that they rejected the idea that high value added investment, like the Silicon Roundabout, are just opportunities for high skilled talent to move into the area, but advocated, with enough time, planning and upskilling, the opportunities for unemployed local people. This approach offers a stern challenge to those who are satisfied with mere trickle-down benefits for the local community from cleaning jobs and selling sandwiches.

At a broader level here are a five big insights for policy thinking that I took away from the interviews and meetings:

1. We need a tailored and sequenced approach to helping jobseekers.

People differ widely and so do their needs. In Brixton, the range was from job-hungry out of work professionals who had just been hit by the downturn, to those in need of skills training and with an appetite to learn, to those with much more severe health, drugs, drink, or housing problems. Particularly for those in at-risk categories, their issues need to be dealt with in the right order in order to be effective, and to reach sustainable and gainful employment as an end goal. One size doesn’t fit all. We shouldn’t talk as if it does.

2. Business, educators and jobseekers shouldn’t operate in isolation.

Our current general modus operandi – of employers wandering blindly into skills shortages, trainers training without a clear view of an end goal, and jobseekers floundering in the middle – indicates some room for improvement. It may make more sense to encourage as much communication and planning between: what businesses need, which they often know many months in advance of the time; what the educators can provide; and the aspirations and development-reach of the jobseeker. The free market is a brutally efficient model of clearing, but it is not perfection. There is value in thinking about the limits of a wage/price solution. Greater understanding and planning across the silos can help.

3. Culture matters and for-profit shouldn’t be a dirty word.

Organisational culture is of the utmost significance. It struck me very telling that A4e refer jobseekers as ‘customers’.

Public service in general should be very far removed from a tick-box process of ‘recipients’, and be, as far as possible, about enabling committed and motivated individuals to have a personal stake in the experience of public service ‘customers’. This is not to bash state provision, just a nudge to try and dislodge any automated revulsion to the concept of for-profit public service. At the very least, we should try and incorporate the motivation and innovation that ‘for-profit’ can, sometimes, demonstrate into all aspects of public service.

4. We should do everything we can to make work pay.

In interviews with ‘customers’, it was clear that there was an entrenched view out there that welfare can pay more than work can. We need to tread carefully here, maintaining the protection for the vulnerable, for mothers and for the down-and-out. But we must do all we can to make employment attractive. While it feels like there is some way to go on this challenging agenda, it is should be at the forefront of policy makers minds. Part of the solution must lie with a relentless effort to raise aspirations in all communities, especially the most deprived.

This is no easy feat.

5. We need bigger thinking on internships.

In an interview with a highly educated jobseeker with two degrees and ambitions in the fashion industry, who had been out of work for over a year, it struck that he was being led on a path that was corrosive to his sense of purpose and confidence, as well as being costly to the economy. His university careers advice centred on the importance of getting experience and an internship to make it in his career of choice. Many readers in the political world will, no doubt, be familiar with this advice. He was financial-capital poor, but human-capital rich. If he went on an internship, he claimed he would lose his housing benefit and employment benefit; a non-option without family support in London. If he took a minimum wage job, the option presented to him by the jobseeker system, he saw only the prospect of working very long hours just to keep his head above water, without any surplus income to save.

The unsympathetic might say he should take whatever job is coming, and be grateful. But surely it makes no sense to consign those who have benefitted from a high level of education to the near poverty trap of minimum wage jobs – not from the perspective of jobseekers self-worth, nor when trying to enable the greatest possible constructive contributions to society, nor when trying to make good on the state’s investment in education, and nor in our effort to encourage the flourishing of high value added employment in the UK.

A potential solution might be (with lots of weaknesses no-doubt, but also some merit): a one-shot universal jobseekers credit for, let’s say, a 6-month unpaid internship? Bolstering skills development, entrenching high-value added jobs and making the UK a more attractive place to locate business, all the while costing the state less (bearing in mind how long this category might otherwise be on welfare). Accepting internship exists rather than trying to wish them away, this could level the playing field for entry to high-skilled professions and be a significant boost for businesses.

‘One Big Chance’ internships – you heard it here first.

Policy Commissions and Young Fabian next steps: everyone should get involved

Joani and Joel are taking forward the thinking in the “Securing the Future of the Next Generation” Policy Commission. The next Anticipations edition will also have a heavy focus on the Squeezed Youth theme.

Tony Blair may be right about the need to focus on the hard to reach dysfunctional families. Or perhaps we do have a broken society and there are big ideas needed to address a lack of hope or prospects in communities up and down the country, hitting the young hardest.

Regardless, if you want to contribute to the thinking and the debate, there are plenty of opportunities with the Young Fabians. Stay tuned for information about a debate on what to learn from the riots.

Please get in touch if you would like to be involved, at any level.

Nick Maxwell is Partnerships Officer for the Young Fabians

The Search for ‘Community’

A buzzword, a fiction, or a societal necessity? The idea of a “community” is something that has been hotly debated over the last two weeks. The unrest in Tottenham can point the way to a better understanding of this term in the modern age.

Many favourite political themes have resurfaced over the last couple of weeks in response to the “wake-up call” afforded by the recent riots. The Prime Minister has resurrected “the broken society”, “responsibility” and “right and wrong” in his keynote speech diagnosing the cause of one hundred hours of lawlessness. Ed Miliband, keenly aware that the aftershocks of the unrest have reshaped the political battleground, is both complementing and criticising the Coalition by flagging up social irresponsibility at both ends of the economic spectrum and demanding a closer scrutiny of “the culture of our society.”

However, the one word that is trending most popularly with politicians, pundits, and the public is one that continues to elude a simple definition: “community”.

What is a “community”? The term rests uncomfortably in a web of ideas, meanings and beliefs that are continually shifting to form new connections. The man on the street would probably describe a community as a close-knit collection of individuals, welded together by their shared residency in a particular neighbourhood or borough. He may add that a community is bound together by its members’ obligation to safeguard mutual interests and promote local improvements – be they social, economic or cultural.

However, that definition rings false in the ears of many whose neighbours are alien to them and who feel little attachment to their particular patch of concrete. Now more than ever, it seems nonsensical- why would individual members of a community effectively wage war on their fellows if they are bound together by such meaningful ties?

Perhaps our man on the street would expand to say that a community can also mean a collection of people united by an idea, or against a specific grievance. Such communities are not confined to localities, and can transcend racial and cultural differences. Under this definition, the number of communities in any one area greatly multiplies.

David Lammy MP may talk about his Tottenham constituency as being one community, but the behaviour of many there suggests that this singular entity has fractured into different parts, if it ever existed in the first place. The riots in Tottenham (I’m setting aside disturbances elsewhere in this post) can be perceived as a clash of communities, some long established, and some newly formed.

The rioters became an ad hoc community on 6 August, unbound by a shared motive but united in their anger towards the police and the intrusive authority they were seen to represent. They chanted “Whose streets? Our streets!” as they attacked the police whose duty it is to protect them and destroyed the buildings that made up their local landscape. As Sam Leith rightly pointed out: “‘our streets’ is an answer that only begs another question: ‘Who’s us?’”

For several nights, ‘us’ was a spontaneous community of mainly young, local residents who, despite the divisions of postcode and ethnicity, shared many similarities. They shared a culture – a street culture unique to the ethnically diverse neighbourhoods of the capital, one which places a premium on the defence of a person’s ‘yard’ (home) and ‘end’ (local area). They shared a grievance with the police- who were seen to be a force of oppression and discrimination. They even shared a language, clumsily called “Multicultural London English” (MLE), from which terms like ‘Feds’, ‘gansta’ and ‘shank’ derive.

Another community that could rightly claim ‘our streets’ as their own include the residents of Tottenham who took part in the initial peaceful protest against the police’s bungled disclosure of Duggan’s shooting. They marched against the perceived injustice and jeered at the police, but did not take part in the riot or use the opportunity to loot and pillage. The members of this community were derived from a wider variety of social backgrounds and ages, yet clearly shared a sense that they had been misled or cheated by the police.

The other community involved were those who stayed at home, who sided with the police and condemned all those involved in the clash. These were the people who David Lammy was most likely referring to when he stated that the community was “anxious”.

Certainly, not everyone in Tottenham was. The first community was angry, violent and selfish. The second was angry, disillusioned and frustrated. The third was fearful, uneasy and threatened.

Tottenham is not one community. It is many. So are all the other communities torn apart by the recent violence. The way forward is to find a way to reconcile these different groups in peaceful coexistence.

It is time to junk the outdated logic that a “community” is something wedded to a specific place. A “community” is an idea that takes a different shape in the minds of different people. In Tottenham, one community is moved by the idea of police oppression, another by the havoc caused by “feral youths”. Attempting to meld them together will only cause tensions in the future.

What is needed is a new discourse on “community”, and a retreat from the idea that all our difference can be subsumed beneath a shared postcode.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabian Blog.

The ‘Invisible Link’

The connection between rioting and economic deprivation must be recognised by a government and public venting its fury in all the wrong directions.

The chaos and wanton destruction of the past week has provoked a new bout of soul-searching within Britain. In the race to identify the origins of the rot that spread out to consume an alarming number of our communities, politicians, broadcasters, journalists, and British citizens have scrutinised the social fabric of the nation and unearthed a rich variety of possible answers. The public can already choose from a range of conceptual lenses through which they can interpret the acts of rioting, looting and murder that have so shaken the national psyche. It is tempting for the politically conscious to grasp at the interpretation that best accords with their stance on the political spectrum to the exclusion of all others, and understand the rioting through the distortions of their personal ideological prisms.

There are many who have already taken this course of action, and are lashing out in screen and print with their own half-formed ideas on the cause of the rioting. The Daily Mail published Melanie Philips’ decidedly right-wing analysis of the riots, attributing “the violent anarchy” of the last several days to “the three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value.” On the other end of the spectrum, Nina Power has projected the London riots as the inevitable manifestation of an unequal society where “the richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest, where consumerism predicated on personal debt has been pushed for years as the solution to a faltering economy, and where, according to the OECD, social mobility is worse than any other developed country”.

In a previous post, Alex evaluated the riots as an economic equation balancing costs and benefits. Labour and their supporters have spouted dozens of statistics in a bid to prove a link exists between economic instability with social disorder. Such analysis may appear cold, sterile and unappealing to the passions of many who want to brand those responsible as “scum”, “feral”, and “evil” in order to vent their understandable frustration. But it has to be recognized, it must be understood that there is a real, tangible link between economic permutations and social unrest.

It also has to be made brilliantly clear that there is a link between personal economic success and psychological resilience. I have discussed the correlation between unemployment and mental health in a previous article, but still many will state that an individual’s employment status is detached from their internal moral compass. The real link must be made more explicit.

Why does a certain individual see a discarded brick, pick it and throw it through a window, while another walks on by? Why does one teenager loot while another, who has the same ability to take what he wants and the knowledge that no-one will stop him, attempt to prevent him?

The answer lies in the individual’s psychological make-up, and the temperament of the invisible policeman of his conscience. However it can never, never be said that the mental state of any individual is constructed in a vacuum. The argument that the environment an individual grows in shapes his character is termed ‘behaviourism’, and is studied as a branch of moral philosophy. It has featured many times as part of discussions on incidences of supposed moral disintegration, perhaps most recently in Britain with the 1993 murder of Jamie Bulger, when Shadow Home Secretary Tony Blair said: “We hear of crimes so horrific they provoke anger and disbelief in equal proportions… These are the ugly manifestations of a society that is becoming unworthy of that name.”

Would those words being any less aptly used today?

Were the riots a product of moral disintegration in some sections of our community? Yes – and the right is quick to acknowledge this. What it fails to do, and what the left must impress upon the public, is that this moral disintegration occurred in community environments that bred contempt, hate, and anger, and that these environments have been allowed to flourish because of institutional failures that neither Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron have successfully addressed.

The depressed communities of Tottenham, Hackney, Birmingham, Salford and elsewhere have been failed by both left and right. They have been cut-off and isolated from the rest of society just as the rich and powerful have cloistered themselves away in opulent London enclaves.

The Prime Minister has been careful with his choice of language over the last couple of weeks, but I applaud him for acknowledging that this is still “our” society, thereby implicating all peoples and classes in the shame that has engulfed our country. As he stated in the Commons, “There are pockets of our society that are not only broken, but frankly sick”.

When one part of the body falls ill, the rest will soon follow unless immediate action is taken. That action cannot be isolated to condemnation, imprisonment, punishment and further deprivation. To do so would be to poison these environments further, and conjure up an even greater storm a decade down the line.

Instead, the link between deprivation and disruption needs to be made more explicit than ever, and severed once and for all.

Louie Woodall is Assistant Editor of the Young Fabian Blog.

Smash and Grab Britain

Reflecting on all the online chatter about whether the riots were caused by the cuts and/or the recession, and also all the talk about the rioters having a sense of ‘unearned entitlement’, it struck me that a better reading might be that both phenomena (the recession/cuts and the looting/riots) may stem from the same social malaise, which has just manifested itself in different ways at the top and bottom of the social food chain.

The narrative would run something like this: Britain is country where for years smash and grab activities by banks and bankers have been tolerated, politicians have committed expenses fraud with impunity and where both politicians and the police have been in the pockets of the right wing media, where a credit orgy for the middle classes led to a credit crunch that has put thousands of working class people out of work, and where an unelected government intends to pay for the bail out of the very same financial system by cutting benefits and services to the most vulnerable, justifying its agenda with spin about a ‘big society’ that can only ever exist in communities that least need it.

When the culture of ‘Smash and Grab Britain’ hits the streets, should we be surprised?

Claire Leigh is Treasurer of the Young Fabians.

Banning social media is a tool of despots, not democracies

Yesterday David Cameron edged closer to unlikely and somewhat troubling bedfellows: Hosni Muburak, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Muammar Gaddafi.

In his statement to Parliament, the Prime Minister floated the idea of giving the relevant authorities the power to suspend communication networks to prevent repeats of the violent disorder that erupted earlier this week across England. The role of Twitter, Facebook and Blackberry’s instant messenger service will now be scrutinised by politicians to better understand their role in the riots, and to determine whether the authorities need powers to prevent such communication in future.

“Mr Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck by how they were organised via social media.

Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill.

And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them.

So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

I wrote a couple of days ago about the costs and benefits of rioting, noting that modern communication techniques have reduced the perceived costs to rioters of their actions. It is understandable that the government is looking at any and every method possible of preventing the riots from occurring again, if only to look vaguely like it is in control of events.

But placing constraints on freedom of expression, a right enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK Human Rights Act, is the wrong tonic.

Yes, the events of the last few days have proved that communication networks can be used for ill.

But those events have also proven that the very same communication networks can be used for good – the Riot Clean Up movement is a good example. Social media has also been an important tool in the police’s ability to predict where trouble is likely to occur and to manage resources effectively.

But more importantly than that, the events of the last few days have not proven that politicians or the police will be able to discern appropriately between communication that supports acts of illegality and communication that supports legitimate acts of protest, or defiance. The powers the PM proposes could be used by the police and politicians to prevent a march against government policy, for example, should they decide that there is a reasonable prospect of “disorder” (howsoever defined).

That is troubling.

This week’s riots were extreme. But introducing powers to curb the ability of the people to communicate with one another would be extreme in response.

More than that, those powers would fail to address any of the root causes of the aggression and wanton criminality we witnessed in the last few days.

Blackberry’s instant messaging service facilitated the riots. It didn’t cause them.

Should David Cameron succeed in introducing such powers, he would quickly move from democrat to despot, arming himself with weaponry more commonly deployed in dictatorships.

That would be a devastating epilogue to a difficult week for Britain.

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” – Noam Chomsky.

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians and Editor of the Young Fabian Blog

Riots, equality and ‘mindlessness’

Yesterday we began to get a foretaste of the political fallout from this week’s rioting; the Gove v Harman clash on Newsnight is perhaps the best example of the sorts of arguments that will be trotted out in the coming days and weeks.

Labour will argue that amongst the underlying factors which drove gangs to violence is the social impact of the government’s deficit reduction programme. The Conservatives will blame Labour for not doing enough while they were in government, and criticise HM’s Opposition for not falling lockstep behind ‘the authorities’.

To my mind, the probable differences in the approach are likely to reflect a difference in emphasis on either the costs or benefits to the rioters/looters of their activity (in turn that probably reflects the biases of the different political parties).

The government is likely to focus more heavily on the costs – for example, prison, fines, tougher police control methods, the direct financial costs of restoring order and the impact on businesses (and therefore employment and growth).

Costs are relative; the herd mentality of the rioters, modern communication techniques and the relatively weak response of the police to the original disturbances are likely to have reduced the relative costs to the rioters of their action. (And the media will have played its part in demonstrating this through its coverage of the riots). This would help explain why rioting took place this week, and not last.

The government’s short- and long- term strategy will need to ensure rioters and looters face higher personal costs to such actions, so the costs to society of such violence are as low as possible. Over the last week, those costs have fallen more on society than the individual (or, rather, the perception of those costs – it remains to be seen how many rioters will be brought to justice).

Those on the left are likely to focus more heavily on the perceived benefits to the rioters of their activity, by which I mean – more specifically – the factors which are likely to have resulted in them thinking it was worth the effort.

Inequality is important here. Arguably, the benefit of a stolen pair of Boxfresh trainers is the same for everyone – it is the value of the trainers. And yet in fact the relative benefit varies greatly. On the margin, an extra pound earned by a millionaire is valued a lot less than an extra pound earned by someone on the minimum wage; equally, the value of a stolen pair of trainers to a millionaire is lower than to someone without a job.

So it is plausible to suggest that the last few years of economic turmoil, anger over bankers’ bonuses (and MPs expenses), the lack of job prospects for the young, and the government welfare reforms and deficit reduction programme may have tilted perceptions of the benefit to taking part in the riots – those on low income feel relatively worse off as a consequence of recent economic events than the more affluent.

Perhaps equally as important is longer term income inequality (which IS partly Labour’s problem, Harriet).

Some of those ‘opportunistic’ looters may have taken part because the potential gains were so high relative to their own circumstances, even if the absolute value of their loot makes it look a bit “mindless” to highly-paid columnists and politicians.

This raises some interesting questions for politicians, and those on the left in particular – should we care about absolute or relative income? Or both? Or is purchasing power a more important metric? Should we level-up or level-down? What is the role of the welfare state? What role policy on community, housing, industry and trade unions?

My fear – based partly on the Newsnight interview – is that the political discourse will now descend into predictably caricatured posturing; those on the left bemoaning the heartlessness of a cruel, austere Tory government casting legion of young people adrift; and those on the right insisting that the way to solve these ills is through ever tougher forms of punishment.

In the mind of the thug, the relative costs and benefits of rioting and looting shifted in the last week. To sustainably restore order, politicians really need to consider both in a balanced way.

(Incidentally, if politicians invoke notions of inequality or lack of punishment as potential contributory factors, then they cannot also maintain that the riots were the acts of “mindless” thugs. If the acts were really “mindless”, then the policy prescription may be more investment in mental health facilities. Arguably the rioters acted in an economically rational way when presented with the opportunity over the last few days, given their relative assessment of the costs and benefits*. Hence I agree with Dave Hill.)

Alex Baker is Secretary of the Young Fabians and Editor of the Young Fabian Blog.

*Obviously some people took part in the riots without looting. This is not necessarily ‘mindless’. For them, there may have been intangible benefits –  such as euphoria, an adrenaline rush or status – which still outweighed the costs.