My hometown has been battered this past week, eaten by its young in an apparently senseless, spontaneous, sustained attack that later spread to towns and cities across the country. Commentators have done what commentators do: fumbled for hasty analysis of cause and effect, and made judgements about issues they don't always understand, at least on any visceral level. Some have been more considered than others; Nina Power's piece in the Guardian was particularly thought provoking.
Others have suggested that, with the fighting continuing and the cities still burning, now is not the right time to ask difficult questions. Of course, the first priority for authorities should be to restore order to the street, and to punish those responsible for bringing distress and violence on others. The police have to be given the power to shut down this mess as quickly as possible. But--and this cannot be avoided--now is also the time to answer the difficult questions that have been put off in this country way too long, questions which, had they been pondered more seriously over the past decades, might have helped us avoid this national nightmare.
To everybody, the images of burning cars, of charging youths, of looting, of untold damage to lives and livelihoods--these images are shocking. But we should not pretend that they are particularly surprising. Violence and vandalism have been symptoms of economic hardship and social dislocation in this country before. And, since those riots in the 1980s, this country has become more cutthroat, not less; more disparate and disenfranchised, not less; more individualistic, not less. Last year, before the general election and the Rose Garden, even Nick Clegg raised the spectre of the possibility of riots in an age of austerity.
It's ironic, if tragic, that Clegg's prophecy has come back to haunt us because the fact of the matter is that so many of our political leaders are almost irredeemably out of touch with the urban young people of this country.
And that's part of the problem. This week has demonstrated it perhaps more starkly than most. The honest leadership--not the regurgitation of an agreed political line, spun ad nauseum, but the honest leadership--of our politicians, so required during these times has been almost totally absent. Michal Gove and Harriet Harman's spat on Newsnight last night was particularly indulgent. Petty arguing over who was "right" and who was "wrong", over whether it was, to paraphrase, "Labour profligacy" or "Tory cuts" which caused this awful situation, at a time when the nation needs reassurance and poise, not childish squabbling, from their political leaders, demonstrated a different, though no less damaging, thoughtlessness and vandalism so castigated in the rioters.
So while this week's destruction is of course unforgiveable, it has to be said that anger is understandable; indeed, it's imperative that our leaders understand it, and do more to eradicate the root causes. Because there is a palpable anger amongst the younger generation, some of which feels let down by the indulgence of our so-called 'leaders' across society.
I'm angry too. Not in a Harriet Harman or Michael Gove kind of way--a way that sees people's lives through the prism of politics, rather than politics through the prism of people's lives--but because our politicians have offered so little at a time of such need. I feel empathy for the young person who sits in a waiting room labelled a benefits thief while her corrupt MP fixes expenses and her distant banker goes all in on red with her home or job. And I'm angry for the businessman who may share his looter's sense of hopelessness at this economic situation, as well as his policeman's frustration that their hopelessness should be expressed in this way--but who, like the rioter, has no sense of belonging, no community or commonality in a disparate era through which to share it.
Politicians' inept reactions to this crisis shouldn't really surprise people, of course. How can David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Theresa May and Boris Johnson possibly know what to say? None has any real knowledge or understanding of the experience of growing up on the edge in the cities; none can be described as remotely in touch with urban life, no matter where they reside. And it's a deep problem, but only part of the wider malaise, that our political establishment doesn't look or sound remotely like urban Britain.
But it's not just the political classes that are letting the country down; it's a large swathe of the traditional establishment. This week, as over many years, that establishment has failed to grasp with any seriousness the disillusionment that has taken hold in this country over a generation. How else can you explain the coordinated and way too-simplistic lines have been toed by the supposed pillars of our society, that this week's vandalism has been "pure, simple acts of criminal behaviour" in the words of Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan of Greater Manchester police; "criminality, pure and simple" in the words of the Prime Minister? We all appreciate and demand the need for a swift and coordinated response echoing across the airwaves to reassure the country. But the severity of the situation requires more nuance than that alone from people in positions of power, if their authority is not to be challenged so gratuitously again.
This stuff does matter to our society, and profoundly. As I tweeted on Monday night., it's hard to imagine that violence and rioting in such extremes could've happened without years, perhaps decades, of breakdown in trust in our establishment--the result of example after example of mishandling and corruption and a shirking of responsibility amongst political, media and City elites, year after year.
This is a deeper and broader problem simply than the financial, democratic and media crises. In many of the other most fundamental pillars of British life, too, we need the type of serious, grown up debate that Harman and Gove couldn't muster last night. For too long, we've been too coy to ask why so many people--and it is a mistake to suggest it's just young people or even just the working classes who have been rioting, as the appearance in front of a magistrate of a 31-year-old teacher shows -- are so utterly and apparently irrevocably disconnected from society.
There are a number of questions that should be discussed, nationally, as a result of these riots. First is the role of family, and the need for all parents to take full responsibility for their children's futures. Yes, there are too many fatherless families and too many absent parents--but surely we can bring ourselves to say that goes for parents whose preference and financial circumstances allow for nannies and boarding schools, as well as those who have to work two or more jobs to make ends meet.
Second, we need to ask more questions about education, and the mutual responsibility of our government to serve our young people, as well as vice versa. It can not be right, and it can not bode well for the future stability or fairness of the country, that in state schools, 39% of 16 to 19-year-olds say they don't know anyone--not a single person --in a job they'd like to do themselves, a number which rises to 45% amongst those on free school meals. Those statistics alone tell us something powerful about ghettoised hopelessness and the need for a more radical social mobility plan.
With such staggering facts, it's little wonder that Britain's disaffected youth so often turn to television, music, magazines and computer games for escape. Occasionally, those role models may inspire--think Plan B or Akala. But just as frequently, our disaffected young can look to inappropriate people: footballers, for example, who routinely take their employers hostage to make a fast buck, or whose behaviour in public and in private betrays a severe detachment from the real world. What do some of those public figures say to their followers about respecting adversity and people?
Third, there needs urgently to be a debate at the local, regional and national level about identity and community, about what it means to be British, or a Londoner, or a Mancunian, or a member of any community in the post-recessionary age. Within those communities and identities, and at the micro-level, what else is happening that leads some people to destroy their neighbours' property, while others from the same estate and with very similar backgrounds offer time to help the cleanup?
Politicians and others will also need to address minefields of vested interests, and areas in which they are not comfortable, like the damage done to the British working classes by a national game that's been allowed to chase profit unchecked, without any consideration for the consequences for the social fabric of the community or the nation; or a public square that's been colonised by conglomerate profit over small business with roots.
Finally, these riots may also spark a discussion about a general and generational inequality that has contributed to this building lawlessness during the past thirty years. Because these riots are not really a new phenomenon; they are the symptom of a dislocation that's been bubbling under the surface for many years. In the age of instant gratification, there are no quick answers. But the need for leaders to address the many complicated questions of our time has just become tangible--and the sense that even more fear and even more hopelessness may be around the corner should be incentive enough to act.
Along with the mess brought on cities this week--and alongside the present economic fragility, worryingly high youth unemployment, job insecurity and growing global uncertainty--these are the big issues we must begin to address in the very short term. Now is surely the time to ask questions about leadership, ethics, identity and togetherness in this country; about the role of our establishment in causing this current crisis but also about family and place; and about the type of country we want to build. Because, although it may be uncomfortable for the establishment on Fleet Street and in Westminster, as a young man who confronted mayor Boris Johnson said simply yesterday, "There's a reason for everything".
Richard (RJ) Eskow: England's Ashes -- America's Future?
Lloyd Chapman: Republicans Trying to End Small Business Programs Again
These were 'something for nothing' riots, there was no protest beyond a peaceful protest for a few hours in Tottenham. The rest was orgiastic display of destruction, thievery and violence. Neither is it an issue of race, shops and buildings were firebombed indiscriminately and those perpetrating this violence were from many walks of life, race and age.
These people felt entitled to take these goods without a scrap of morality. They probably felt they deserved them.
Which leads onto morality and understanding right from wrong. It is that basic because as these people degenerated into base behaviour (and I think you are over-sophisticating the majority of these idiots) they clearly do not understand the morality of their actions and do not understand right from wrong. There is a failure of responsibility.
It seems too that morality is a dirty word and again here is another left-leaning commentator who has utterly avoided its use.
Government does need to look at this but more big government is certainly not the answer, we have arrived here thanks to big government; we need a new approach not more of the tired cliches from the Labour Party or its supporters.
F&F
The last thing we need, but what I suspect we will see later on today, is squabbling rather than reasoned argument about what we are going to do in the short, medium and long term. My position, expressed in my Huffington Post blog piece http://huff.to/pnJVVy on Tuesday will not surprise you. You will know that it is underpinned by many years of challenging the orthodoxy that you so rightly described as seeing “people's lives through the prism of politics, rather than politics through the prism of people's lives”.
There seem to be a couple of important steps going forward. Firstly, we must enforce the law – people I have spoken to, do not want any ‘no-go’ areas for the police in London; criminal behaviour must be dealt with using the full force of the law
Secondly, working together, we must ensure that Government at all levels adopts economic policies that support local people. Prime Minister Cameron and members of his front bench cannot stay shrouded in their cloud of denial for much longer. The recession has left some people facing real hardship and compounded the social dislocations that exist within our communities. So we urgently need policies that will enable investment and growth, rather than a focus on what will be next in line to be cut.
Note: Jennette Arnold AM is the Labour London Assembly Member for North East London (Hackney, Islington and Waltham Forest)
I'm not a Labour supporter, and never have been, but if any Party was to publicly state what you have presented here AND ACT upon it with real determination, and not the usual pathetic, crowd (i.e. their own vested interest groups) pleasing sound bites, I would change my allegiance.
At the moment most people's perception is that everyone is in it for themselves, whether that is politicians, bankers, footballers, rioters or whoever, so why should I not get my bit?
Maybe the only hope is that the current economic meltdown continues, the whole fabric breaks and something new comes out the other side.
THIS. I think that can be applied in both England and the US.
What has happened in London and the surrounding areas, where the rioting/looting has spread, is truly tragic. However, it has opened a dialogue that was surely needed. Let's hope this ends soon so the real progress can happen.
Alex Smith (Labour) impresses with his simple talk of things "we've been too coy to ask," but intentionally omits the biggest problem of all, and the dirtiest little secret of politicians.
Big money persuades Labour and Tories alike to legislate in financial favour of the obscenely rich and corporations and against the working man. This skyrocketing income disparity makes the obscenely rich much richer and everyone else much poorer. It's very profitable for politicians, who reap campaign donations, perks and gifts, scholarships and jobs for spouses and kids, even admission into the 'right' schools. We've all heard the reasons:
The rich use their money to create jobs. Somehow to politicians, jobs created overseas for foreigners for £1/day are a 'benefit' to Britains living in Britain; and they never explain how. This gives 'trickle-down economics' a bad name.
Others claim that raising taxes to a fair rate on the obscenely wealthy and corporations would cause most of them to move abroad to get better tax rates. This is risable; they're already using tons of tax mechanisms to make sure they don't pay full tax. Some large corporations just don't pay at all, like Vodafone, and the government just ignores it. Topshop is another; Green put it in his wife's name to avoid taxes (Monaco, ain't it grand?) while serving as an advisor to Cameron on government spending and procurement. Clearly, if a working man tried to hide £1,000, he'd be jailed; but this guy gets paid. One country, two standards.
Politicians don't even discuss taking action against big offenders; they won't risk losing the dirty but very large paychecks on the side. Changing the tax and residency requirements to make sure Britain gets paid first by their citizens and corporations would just be close to fatal to any politician who cared and dared. Right now, they all get elected, but they really serve those who pay them the best - and figure the citizens deserve it.
Politicians aren't willing to actually serve the citizens' interests first. Alex Smith, for all his talk, isn't one either.
This is a subject that is far too complex to be condensed into 2 or 3 or 10 questions. It is quite obvious though that the lessons from prior incidences along history have not been learned.
"youth so often turn to television, music, magazines and computer games for escape"
I cannot agree less and I shudder to think of the contents of some of them, utter anarchism and nihilism.
"It's hard to imagine that violence and rioting in such extremes could've happened without years, perhaps decades, of breakdown in trust in our establishment--the result of example after example of mishandling and corruption and a shirking of responsibility amongst political, media and City elites, year after year."
So if somebody dare say "criminality", who is the breeder?
------------------------------------------------------------------
What? Come on. The willingness to pay 10,000 a week is not old. 40,000 a week recent, 100,000 a week very recent. The system is rotten. Its vile nature has little to do with the behaviour of individual footballers. Are you afraid of condemning a system - so you express the idea in a way which moralizes about individuals? Or do you approve of the system? Would you like to tell us?