Causes and Effects of the London/England Riots

[Masada]

Jeez Cami is siding with the Tories and I'm siding with Formy. Maybe I'm dreaming all this. Who knows?

 

[Winston Hughes]

You say this as if it wasn't the case that, until Kinnock, the Labour Party functioned as the political arm of the TUC.

While the unions have always been a cornerstone of the Labour Party, it does it a grave disservice to make out that it was only ever a front for them, and many of the most distinguished and influential figures in its history would take great offence at such a suggestion.

Honestly, the fact that "trying to weaken the unions' hold over Labour" forms a coherent sentence shows how far to the right that the party has already drifted...

I don't see that moving away from union control of the party is the same as moving to the right. On the other hand, if it is the same, it merely demonstrates that the left does not have the answers to the problems of poverty in modern Britain, since the interests of the unions are fundamentally opposed to those of the poorest in society.

 

[Traitorfish]

While the unions have always been a cornerstone of the Labour Party, it does it a grave disservice to make out that it was only ever a front for them, and many of the most distinguished and influential figures in its history would take great offence at such a suggestion.

I didn't mean to suggest that it was only ever a front, but that the Labour Party- and, indeed, the "labour party" as a generic party-form- originally represented the entry of organised labour into the electoral sphere. Granted, there were ILPers like Hardy, Fabians like the Webbs, and so on, but they were always a minority which provided intellectual rather than electoral weight. The shift from a party-of-labour to a party-which-happens-to-represent-labour-among-other-interests was a very real one.

I don't see that moving away from union control of the party is the same as moving to the right.

In general terms, perhaps, but if we're talking about the particular evolution of Labour Party- from a position of social democratic corporatism to one of liberal anti-corporatism- then it certainly does. It's not exactly like Milliband opposes the unions because he has a head full of Bordiga.

On the other hand, if it is the same, it merely demonstrates that the left does not have the answers to the problems of poverty in modern Britain, since the interests of the unions are fundamentally opposed to those of the poorest in society.

Well, you won't find me coming out in unconditional favour of bureaucratic tred-unionizm, but I think that you're over-simplistically assuming a necessarily antagonistic relationship between the interests of organised labour (albeit a stunted organised labour, as you say) and the interests of "the poor". Organised labour is and has been on the defensive for over two decades which naturally makes the pursuit of its interests less than universally benevolent; if "the left" is unable to move past this, it's either because, as in the case of the Labour left, they lack the ability or will to reverse this, or, in the case of the Labour right, this is exactly how they like the unions.

 

[Winston Hughes]

@Traitorfish

To my mind, this is the curse of the left: it puts too much faith in theories and ideals, and then collapses into cynicism when things turn out different in practice. What you call 'the Labour left' has been choked by its inability to reconcile an idealistic worldview with the facts of the political environment, and has sunk into a cynical inaction (or, occasionally, reaction). Meanwhile, the cynicism of 'the Labour right' has gone the other way, abandoning all but a thin veneer of concern for the poor, as blunt political pragmatism has reigned supreme.

 

[useless]

For those wondering where this culture of greed, isolationism, individualism and desire came from, look merely at Margeret "And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families" Thatcher, whose desire to create a libertarian paradise helped inspire such a change in culture, whose activities destroyed communities, whose policies and ideology continued by every party and Prime minister in power since her accursed reign.

 

[Traitorfish]

And wouldn't you know it, The Telegraph, of all things, has run a piece saying just that:

The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom

David Cameron, Ed Miliband and the entire British political class came together yesterday to denounce the rioters. They were of course right to say that the actions of these looters, arsonists and muggers were abhorrent and criminal, and that the police should be given more support.

But there was also something very phony and hypocritical about all the shock and outrage expressed in parliament. MPs spoke about the week’s dreadful events as if they were nothing to do with them.

I cannot accept that this is the case. Indeed, I believe that the criminality in our streets cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society. The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the British governing elite. It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. An almost universal culture of selfishness and greed has grown up.

It is not just the feral youth of Tottenham who have forgotten they have duties as well as rights. So have the feral rich of Chelsea and Kensington. A few years ago, my wife and I went to a dinner party in a large house in west London. A security guard prowled along the street outside, and there was much talk of the “north-south divide”, which I took literally for a while until I realised that my hosts were facetiously referring to the difference between those who lived north and south of Kensington High Street.

Most of the people in this very expensive street were every bit as deracinated and cut off from the rest of Britain as the young, unemployed men and women who have caused such terrible damage over the last few days. For them, the repellent Financial Times magazine How to Spend It is a bible. I’d guess that few of them bother to pay British tax if they can avoid it, and that fewer still feel the sense of obligation to society that only a few decades ago came naturally to the wealthy and better off.

Yet we celebrate people who live empty lives like this. A few weeks ago, I noticed an item in a newspaper saying that the business tycoon Sir Richard Branson was thinking of moving his headquarters to Switzerland. This move was represented as a potential blow to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, because it meant less tax revenue.

I couldn’t help thinking that in a sane and decent world such a move would be a blow to Sir Richard, not the Chancellor. People would note that a prominent and wealthy businessman was avoiding British tax and think less of him. Instead, he has a knighthood and is widely feted. The same is true of the brilliant retailer Sir Philip Green. Sir Philip’s businesses could never survive but for Britain’s famous social and political stability, our transport system to shift his goods and our schools to educate his workers.

Yet Sir Philip, who a few years ago sent an extraordinary £1 billion dividend offshore, seems to have little intention of paying for much of this. Why does nobody get angry or hold him culpable? I know that he employs expensive tax lawyers and that everything he does is legal, but he surely faces ethical and moral questions just as much as does a young thug who breaks into one of Sir Philip’s shops and steals from it?

Our politicians – standing sanctimoniously on their hind legs in the Commons yesterday – are just as bad. They have shown themselves prepared to ignore common decency and, in some cases, to break the law. David Cameron is happy to have some of the worst offenders in his Cabinet. Take the example of Francis Maude, who is charged with tackling public sector waste – which trade unions say is a euphemism for waging war on low‑paid workers. Yet Mr Maude made tens of thousands of pounds by breaching the spirit, though not the law, surrounding MPs’ allowances.

A great deal has been made over the past few days of the greed of the rioters for consumer goods, not least by Rotherham MP Denis MacShane who accurately remarked, “What the looters wanted was for a few minutes to enter the world of Sloane Street consumption.” This from a man who notoriously claimed £5,900 for eight laptops. Of course, as an MP he obtained these laptops legally through his expenses.

Yesterday, the veteran Labour MP Gerald Kaufman asked the Prime Minister to consider how these rioters can be “reclaimed” by society. Yes, this is indeed the same Gerald Kaufman who submitted a claim for three months’ expenses totalling £14,301.60, which included £8,865 for a Bang & Olufsen television.

Or take the Salford MP Hazel Blears, who has been loudly calling for draconian action against the looters. I find it very hard to make any kind of ethical distinction between Blears’s expense cheating and tax avoidance, and the straight robbery carried out by the looters.

The Prime Minister showed no sign that he understood that something stank about yesterday’s Commons debate. He spoke of morality, but only as something which applies to the very poor: “We will restore a stronger sense of morality and responsibility – in every town, in every street and in every estate.” He appeared not to grasp that this should apply to the rich and powerful as well.

The tragic truth is that Mr Cameron is himself guilty of failing this test. It is scarcely six weeks since he jauntily turned up at the News International summer party, even though the media group was at the time subject to not one but two police investigations. Even more notoriously, he awarded a senior Downing Street job to the former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, even though he knew at the time that Coulson had resigned after criminal acts were committed under his editorship. The Prime Minister excused his wretched judgment by proclaiming that “everybody deserves a second chance”. It was very telling yesterday that he did not talk of second chances as he pledged exemplary punishment for the rioters and looters.

These double standards from Downing Street are symptomatic of widespread double standards at the very top of our society. It should be stressed that most people (including, I know, Telegraph readers) continue to believe in honesty, decency, hard work, and putting back into society at least as much as they take out.

But there are those who do not. Certainly, the so-called feral youth seem oblivious to decency and morality. But so are the venal rich and powerful – too many of our bankers, footballers, wealthy businessmen and politicians.

Of course, most of them are smart and wealthy enough to make sure that they obey the law. That cannot be said of the sad young men and women, without hope or aspiration, who have caused such mayhem and chaos over the past few days. But the rioters have this defence: they are just following the example set by senior and respected figures in society. Let’s bear in mind that many of the youths in our inner cities have never been trained in decent values. All they have ever known is barbarism. Our politicians and bankers, in sharp contrast, tend to have been to good schools and universities and to have been given every opportunity in life.

Something has gone horribly wrong in Britain. If we are ever to confront the problems which have been exposed in the past week, it is essential to bear in mind that they do not only exist in inner-city housing estates.

The culture of greed and impunity we are witnessing on our TV screens stretches right up into corporate boardrooms and the Cabinet. It embraces the police and large parts of our media. It is not just its damaged youth, but Britain itself that needs a moral reformation.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/p...r-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/

I can't say that I particularly agree with much of that- all that talk of noblesse oblige honestly makes me a little queezy- but it's interesting to see how widespread this sort of reaction has become.

@Traitorfish

To my mind, this is the curse of the left: it puts too much faith in theories and ideals, and then collapses into cynicism when things turn out different in practice. What you call 'the Labour left' has been choked by its inability to reconcile an idealistic worldview with the facts of the political environment, and has sunk into a cynical inaction (or, occasionally, reaction). Meanwhile, the cynicism of 'the Labour right' has gone the other way, abandoning all but a thin veneer of concern for the poor, as blunt political pragmatism has reigned supreme.

Arguably so. I'm certainly not going to spend much effort defending the mainstream left.

 

[aelf]

And wouldn't you know it, The Telegraph, of all things, has run a piece saying just that:

snip

Actually, in a way, the piece answers its own question. Why are there double standards? Well, the so-called elite (which refers here to the wealthy and the powerful) simply do what they do within the legal framework. They have constructed their quest for selfish gain as decisions made within a system of incentives that are legitimised by the cover of democratic accountability, legality and rationality. On the other hand, those who are unable to do the same resort to means that are outside the legitimate system, violating the cherished rules of bourgeois society, and they are thereby vilified.

In other words, in the quest for selfish gains, those who can bend the rules, those who can't break them. As long as there is nothing to appeal to but the rules of the system, the two will continue to be constructed differently in the hegemonic discourse.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well said.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I love all this talk about "feral youth". I keep getting this image of wolf-like teens who are rampaging, killing, and consuming Londoners raw along the banks of the Thames; sort of a teenage version of the feral boy from Road Warrior.

Perhaps it will eventually end with the arrests of so many middle class white adults for looting.

 

[Nares]

The only interview I've heard of the rioters was of two drunk girls who were using it as an excuse to party.

- The gross inequalities in society undermine people's respect for property owners and the police. The welfare state that reduced inequality has been partially dismantled.

Ironically, this was their big excuse; they were showing the police and the "rich people" that they'll do what they want....by drinking at 9AM and encouraging more violent rioters to grow even bolder.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Arguably so. I'm certainly not going to spend much effort defending the mainstream left.

Much of the non-mainstream left is culpable too, thanks to its cynical abdication of responsibility in the face of political realities that do not mesh with its idealised aims. Moreover, as I mentioned before, I take issue with the way the left characterises the poor as helpless victims, which is something that the far-left is especially guilty of.

It's easy to stand on the sidelines bemoaning the state of play, but it solves absolutely nothing, and usually just helps to make things worse. There's nothing wrong with imagining - and working towards - some idea of a better system for the future. But that does not absolve one of responsibility for acting in such a way as to improve things within the system as exists in the present day. After all, empowerment is the key to overcoming poverty, and the essential ingredient of empowerment is the determination that you do, in fact, have the power to effect meaningful change here and now.

ps. I see the Met are in full-on denial mode as usual, responding with outrage to any suggestion that any mistakes were made.

 

[brennan]

Very well put by Aelf.

I find myself in argeement with Winston's comments about the left against the left. The labour and trades unions movement has always represented the working lower classes and have the same hateful view of those who do not work as the conservatives. How does this view that you are scum if you do not have a job gell with some really shocking labour market statistics:

Out of a total labour force in the UK of around 42-43 million less than 23 million have a full time job.
Not only are there 2.5 million unemployed, but in the latest research by the Office of National Statistics, more than 2 million out of the nearly 10 million people working part time are doing so specifically because they cannot find a full time job!

That's 4.5-5 million people unable to find full time work in the UK right now. And both the right and the institutional left both join together in calls of 'get a job' in wanton ignorance of the basic fact that the number of jobs has dropped from not-enough-to-go-round, to even-fewer-than-before. Rather than moan about benefit culture and lazyness, those with all the money (and boy is there a lot of money sloshing around the upper echelons) have a moral responsibility to either create vast numbers of jobs or accept that their taxes have to pay to keep alive every single person that they turn down for a job or make redundant.

 

[Cutlass]

After all, empowerment is the key to overcoming poverty, and the essential ingredient of empowerment is the determination that you do, in fact, have the power to effect meaningful change here and now.

While this is a good sentiment, the problem is that in many cases it's just not possible for people to have to power to make changes. The system is rigged. And so people lose hope that they have it within themselves to do anything about it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Much of the non-mainstream left is culpable too, thanks to its cynical abdication of responsibility in the face of political realities that do not mesh with its idealised aims. Moreover, as I mentioned before, I take issue with the way the left characterises the poor as helpless victims, which is something that the far-left is especially guilty of.

It's easy to stand on the sidelines bemoaning the state of play, but it solves absolutely nothing, and usually just helps to make things worse. There's nothing wrong with imagining - and working towards - some idea of a better system for the future. But that does not absolve one of responsibility for acting in such a way as to improve things within the system as exists in the present day. After all, empowerment is the key to overcoming poverty, and the essential ingredient of empowerment is the determination that you do, in fact, have the power to effect meaningful change here and now.

Hah, well, you won't see my defending the bulk of the non-mainstream left, either. If there's one thing that the last few years have made patently clear, it's that the organised British left is pretty much dead in the water. SWP, Respect, all of that? Useless.

 

[Traitorfish]

Sorry for the double post, but this is very interesting:


Link to video.

Edit: I should point out, that I'm not entirely sure what organisation these people are associated with, but, none the less, it is interesting.

 

[Quackers]

On a slightly unrelated point, there is a lot of respect toward the non-whites who stand up and protect there communities. If your a white guy though - forget about it -your a racist!
Well it was just from reading this article. And that is written in the left-wing press a newspaper of the political class and a big supporter of labour.

 

[Ajidica]

I must wonder, will the Daily Mail print an article looking at the brave efforts by the Muslim immigrants in defending their town and British shopkeeping values from hordes of native British looters and rioters?

 

[Quackers]

I've seen a picture of a load of Sikhs standing outside there temple wielding there ceremonial swords.
EDIT: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...locals-protect-pubs-Britons-defy-rioters.html

 

[Traitorfish]

On a slightly unrelated point, there is a lot of respect toward the non-whites who stand up and protect there communities. If your a white guy though - forget about it -your a racist!

I think the difference is that the Turkish and Kurdish people who defended their communities acted reasonably, while the white vigilantes were often somewhat inebriated, ran around shouting "Get the blacks!", and were in some cases organised by white nationalist organisations such as the EDL. People tend to be naturally biased against wannabe brownshirts, so it's really not that surprising.

I must wonder, will the Daily Mail print an article looking at the brave efforts by the Muslim immigrants in defending their town and British shopkeeping values from hordes of native British looters and rioters?

My guess is that they'll focus on the Turkish and Kurdish communities, who, although largely Muslim, are not regarded with quite the same hostility as South Asians, and on the Sikhs, who the British establishment have long had a patronisingly tolerant attitude towards, a leftover of the ethnic politics of the British Raj.

 

[Quackers]

EDL are WN? Don't think I've ever heard that description. Then again I don't read the Morning Star Maybe a few bad eggs are but on the whole i think anti-Islam is there thing...Just as you wouldn't accuse the labour party as supporting Saddam Hussein years ago when George Galloway was a labour MP.

Anyway I'm sure there are plenty of white vigilantes who defended there communities reasonably. But in that article the author doesn't even concede that point at all.