Hackney is rebuilding. The heart-stopping wall-to-wall coverage may have ceased. And the foreign journalists that beat a path to the borough have gone home. But life in Hackney has continued. The response from the people of Hackney has been an inspiration - streets have been cleared, damage is being repaired, and our communities have pulled together. People are beginning to feel safe again.
It was heartbreaking to be out on the streets of Hackney as areas like the Pembury estate in Hackney became engulfed in flames, with years of incremental progress burning grotesquely for an international audience. But Hackney and its people are resilient, and the progress Hackney has made is resolute.
Cuts do not make criminals. Poverty does not make criminals either. Clearly, the causes are long-term, complex and difficult to confront. So we must ask, without fear or hesitation, why and how this happened. Because we must be sure, with people's livelihoods at stake in a fragile economy, unnecessary tensions whipped up and with the Olympics on the horizon, that this does not happen again.
This week, Theresa May, the Home Secretary stated glibly that it is 'not helpful for politicians to speculate' about what went wrong, and that 'I'm absolutely clear that what underlay it was criminality.' David Cameron's analysis also puts the riots down to "criminality" pure and simple. And stops there. It says that to explain is to excuse.
But people in Hackney have invested more thought into the riots. Now is not the time for kneejerk responses, simplistic answers and the blanket condemnation of parts of British society, because it paints a distorted picture.
We must accept and acknowledge, to begin with, that Britain is failing to provide many of our most precious urban communities with meaningful occupations and hope for the future. For many people who were rioting, that week was a rejection of the future that was laid out for them. Economic inequality, consumerism and savage government cuts have given many poorer, urban communities a profound sense of hopelessness for the future.
The availability of media and information exchange has seen immeasurable advances for the lifestyles and opportunities for some of the poorest people in the country. Yet it is mass consumerism and aspects of our media that has eroded and replaced many of the social structures that the communities grew out of - relentless advertising, MTV and instant messaging has often seemingly replaced family networks, educational commitments and community gatherings.
Yet many of these issues are not confined to our urban communities. Far from it. It was an adrenaline-based 'get rich or die trying' culture that was the fuel for both the banking crisis, and for some of the riots on our streets.
Those bankers who dragged the economy into recession made the same misjudgements and miscalculations as those people who took to the streets to drag the country into despair. In many cases, both groups believed that they had found a short cut to wealth in the face of a rapidly changing economy. Tragically, both made the awful miscalculation that there would be no consequences.
Follow Diane Abbott on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hackneyabbott
Alex Andreou: Antony Worrall Thompson: The Cook, the Thief and the Do-Over
"For many people who were rioting, that week was a rejection of the future that was laid out for them."
I'm sorry but that is utter nonsense. It was nothing to do with that and everything to do with thinking that they could get away with stealing stuff from businesses during the riots. There were no socio-economic issues running through their heads as they smashed the windows of those shops and looted the entire contents. They were only concerned about how much they could carry and how quickly they could get it away from the scene.
All this talk about the looting being some socio-economic symptom seems to be completely unfounded and simply a way to excuse her own constituents of their criminal behaviour.
How does society, in the sociological sense of the word, determine who is at the top and who's on the bottom? Plato considered the question 2,500 years ago and came up with "philosopher kings", the merchant/military/peasant classes have been rebelling against the notion ever since.
Like most countries, Britain is ruled over by merchants, who are all about money. In a way it's the most egalitarian solution, as any idiot can make money, while cleaver idiots( Rupert Murdock for example). can make fortunes.
I'm not sure if their is an ideal solution to the problem, but I know what the worst option is - those based on region/morality - the very thing conservative pundits continue to push.
All I see is somebody who panders to others by promising them something the UK cannotbofford.
What savage government cuts? The UK is spending beyond its means. The government needs to spend a little bit less. The coalition government has cut spending by a little bit, but I don't see anything that could be described as 'savage'.
Especially if questioned to the extent that their speculations demonstrate a rather subjective and suspect perception of reality? If a politician cannot elucidate to the extent that all the loose ends of their argument neatly tie together. How likely is it that the measures they are introducing, to deal with those matters as identified by that interpretation, are actually going to work?
"David Cameron's analysis"
is not available for testing. Therefore, it is worth no more than anyone else’s best guess. You might imagine that someone in such a position would need to be a mite more circumspect, and a little less cavalier (past incumbents included). Wouldn’t you?
"Those bankers who dragged the economy into recession made the same misjudgments and miscalculations."
Probably by applying the same modus operandi. No one challenged, or was permitted to challenge, their evaluations. There was simply no need. Because to all intents and purposes they understood the situation completely. Comprehensively appreciating the outcome, yet to come.