• [Aug 19] Baroness Dee Doocey* writes: IF you watched the TV comedy 'The Thick of It', you'll recall how this programme brilliantly satirised the tendency of New Labour to govern by 'initiative'. Politics was reduced to public relations. Policies were created on the hoof with an eye to the next morning's headlines.

If you thought those days ended at the last general election, think again. The riots that took place in various English cities during 6-9 August should have given everyone in politics pause for thought. Instead, many politicians and commentators were shooting from the hip or trotting out predictable responses.

There was no shortage of Conservatives calling for swift retribution against rioters or Labour supporters demanding sympathy for the rioters. It seemed more important to win media coverage by reinforcing prejudices than to tackle the underlying causes.

But playing to the gallery pays only short-term dividends. Yes, "something must be done". But only an intelligent, long-term, considered response will prevent a recurrence of these riots. The Liberal Democrats have been among the few talking sense and we now need to formulate appropriate policies.

I suggest we should adopt the following ten principles:

• Rioting is wrong - Whatever the reasons for the rioting, it was inexcusable. Violence, arson and looting are serious criminal activities that cannot in any circumstances be condoned. The fact that rioters went for JD Sports and Currys rather than Waterstones or Holland & Barrett suggests material greed was a more likely motive than political protest. But profound moral questions confront us all, not just the rioters. What sort of example is set by the scandals of executive pay or MPs' expenses? How can establishment figures lecture rioters when so many of them have their snouts in the trough? As commentator Peter Oborne suggested in the Daily Telegraph ('The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom', 11 August),Britain's elite needs to take a good look at itself.

• We cannot prescribe without a diagnosis - We must examine the deeper causes of the riots if we are to formulate an effective response. Many Conservatives suggest that trying to understand what has happened is tantamount to sympathising with the rioters. Others trot out simplistic explanations. "It is criminality pure and simple" says David Cameron, while his opponents on the left match him parody for parody with comments along the lines of "society is to blame". The uncomfortable truth is that the reasons for the riots are complex. Why did riots happen inManchester but not Newcastle, Nottingham but notSheffield? InLondon, why did riots happen in more affluent areas such as Croydon and Ealing but not in Hammersmith and Fulham? To understand what has happened, we should start by listening to people who have worked at the sharp end for years and who know what they're talking about, such as Camila Batmanghelidjh (Kids Company) or Decima Francis (The Boyhood to Manhood Foundation).

The government inquiry into the riots, brokered by the Liberal Democrats, is a step in the right direction. But if we ignore the evidence, we end up with simplistic proposals such as David Cameron's suggestion that parents should take more responsibility for their children. He is absolutely right in principle, but completely ignores the fact that many of the looters don't have two parents. They are from broken homes, with parents who just don't care. A generation of feral kids is being raised in certain areas ofLondon, which is coming back to haunt us. There are admirable voluntary schemes that are tackling this problem, but funding for such schemes is being cut by up to 30%, a false economy that will cost us dear in the long run.

• We must reject knee-jerk responses - People naturally feel angry about the riots and want action, but calls for plastic bullets, water cannon, spraying people with indelible dye, bringing in the army, shutting down social networks or ignoring human rights laws will do no good at all. If such measures were adopted, they would undo years of patient work to build police-community relationships. David Cameron's decision to hire an American 'supercop' - without consulting either the police or those in theUK who have achieved excellent results over many years working with gangs - is nothing more than grandstanding. Politicians of all parties have a duty to think before they open their mouths, and not try to cash in on gut reactions or tabloid hysteria - despite the media's hunger for sensational news and a consequent tendency to incite sensational comment. Instead, responses must be coherent and evidence-based. Politicians must also work closely with the police to establish good order. The unseemly row between cabinet ministers and senior police officers was a product of the Conservatives trying to re-establish their authority at any cost. There is no excuse for indulging in this sort of posturing.

• Punishments must be proportionate - Rioting, looting and arson are already serious criminal offences, for which we have the due process of prosecution and court procedures, and for which there are tariffs for punishment. That is how offenders should be dealt with. It is wrong to add extra-judicial punishments by evicting the families of offenders from social housing. It is inconsistent, since the families of offenders who are private tenants or home owners will not be made homeless. It is also counter-productive, since local councils will be under a duty to re-house most of the evicted families at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Instead, we should aim for more restorative justice, which forces offenders to confront the consequences of their actions. Locking up rioters for four years may satisfy a short-term lust for retribution but it will not help to integrate offenders into society unless and until prisons actually teach skills. At present, prison sentences are more likely to turn a cannabis user into a hard drug user and a petty criminal into a hardened criminal, storing up worse problems for the future.

• Now is not the time to cut police numbers - The riots stretched police resources to the limit. The government's cut of £1.9bn in police budgets is equivalent to 16,000 officers - the same number of officers that were placed onLondon's streets at the height of the riots. If police numbers continue to be reduced, it will be increasingly difficult to deal with future unrest. But don't be fooled by Boris Johnson's call for a policy reversal. As Mayor of London, he is ultimately responsible for the Metropolitan Police's budget. The Liberal Democrats on the London Assembly have proposed real savings that could be made in the Met's budget, from cutting chauffeur driven cars for senior police officers through to slashing the huge number of press officers. The Mayor has repeatedly rejected these suggestions and chose instead to reduce the number of police sergeants in Safer Neighbourhood Teams. He cannot now turn round and put all the blame on the government.

• Now is the time to ditch elected police commissioners - The government's Police Bill is not yet law and there is still time to abandon the idea of elected police commissioners. When police budgets are being cut, how can the government justify spending more than £130m on setting up the new system, £50m on each round of the elections and £112k in an annual salary to each commissioner? It is an upheaval we don't need and for which there is no enthusiasm. At the very least, the government's plan to introduce the new system inLondon this December should be deferred until after the 2012 Olympic Games (the greatest security challenge this country has ever faced in peacetime). The current plan is seriously flawed and risks compromising security.

• There is no case for vigilantes - The police were unable to cope with the riots at first because they simply did not have the numbers of officers available, so it was natural for some communities to take to the streets to defend their property. But this is not a long-term solution. There is a thin line between community solidarity and people taking the law into their own hands, and it is a line that should not be crossed, otherwise we face a descent into gang-on-gang violence. As the recent appearance of the English Defence League inEnfield showed, vigilantes can prove as big a problem as rioters.

• Gang culture is not just another lifestyle - Many global brands have unashamedly cashed in on gang culture. The riots should be a wake-up call for the sort of companies whose brands are stocked by JD Sports. For example, Adidas, a major sponsor of the 2012 London Olympics, was quick to condemn the riots, yet it is about to launch an advertising campaign featuring rapper Snoop Dogg, who personifies gang culture. Companies such as Adidas help to make yob culture cool. They should be pressured into ending their complicity in this culture - companies that are sponsoring the 2012 Games should not be allowed at the same time to promote the culture that leads to violence on our streets.

• The 'war on drugs' has failed - The riots and the gang culture behind them are to a significant extent a product of the criminal drugs trade. There is a growing consensus that the 'war on drugs', launched by President Nixon forty years ago, has been counter-productive and an unmitigated disaster. Ewan Hoyle's thoughtful piece on Liberal Democrat Voice ('Our flawed drug laws are at heart of riots', 15 August) makes a powerful case for a smarter approach to drugs. The Liberal Democrats' party conference in September will debate drugs policy and consider whether to adopt such an approach.

• There remains much to celebrate - A 'broken society'? No, not when, for every single rioter, there were a hundred volunteers cleaning up with their brushes and a thousand generous donors providing money and clothing for those burned out of their homes. Society is bruised, battered and weakened but, despite claims that society does not exist, it survives and in many areas prospers. We now need to consider how we can help society flourish. And if the sort of people who riot felt that they are part of society instead of feeling excluded, they would be less likely to riot in the first place.

In short, the Liberal Democrats can distinguish themselves in this debate by proposing policies that are rational rather than emotional, and which are rooted in an examination of the evidence and in the experience of people who are working at the sharp end. We should not be afraid to express a clear moral standpoint. But we should remain calm and mature, and avoid the temptation to posture or appeal to base emotions.

* Liberal Democrat London Assembly policing spokesperson and member of the Metropolitan Police Authority

• Glasgow gangs fade away as anti-violence campaign takes hold [Guardian Aug 21]