Yesterday, Ed Miliband articulated his vision for moving forward following last week’s riots. Having successfully highlighted the dividing lines between his and David Cameron’s response, his challenge will be to gain both political momentum and popular support for his proposals.
In the speech at his former comprehensive in north London, Miliband underlined the imbalance and hypocrisy of the prime minister’s focus on culture and moral standards as the context for the riots. Poverty and deprivation, he argued, should equally be taken into account as contributing factors – as Cameron too once claimed in a major speech.
Describing Cameron’s answers as shallow and superficial, Miliband proposed a commission of inquiry to explore the causes of the riots. But to explain is not to excuse, he stressed. Emphasising unequivocally that individuals are responsible for their actions, he added a subtle caveat: the ‘inconvenient truth’ is that we all share a responsibility for the society we create.
Many people are seeking a quick response to the crisis, and to this effect, Cameron’s response captures the pervading public mood for retribution. Cracking down heavily on the perpetrators is the revenge understandably sought by many for the trauma inflicted on our communities.
Miliband, criticising the prime minister’s reactions as ‘knee-jerk’, is right to highlight that the complexity of the causes necessitates thorough investigation. As the rawness of the situation fades, he insists that the challenge to politicians is to remain committed to the issues at hand over the long term.
By calling for a commission of inquiry, Miliband appears again to be a step ahead of the prime minister, who has refuted this suggestion. Only this morning did Nick Clegg announce that a communities and victims panel will be set up, which will not have the scope of a full inquiry. Miliband must, as promised, press ahead with his idea, showing the leadership he demonstrated over the phone hacking scandal. As leader of the opposition, he is not subject to the pressure felt within government of being seen to respond to the riots with precision and concrete policy. Yet to show himself worthy of and capable of occupying the office to which he aspires, his own alternatives must be set out with clarity.
While communities nationwide will welcome a frank opportunity to engage in the dialogue and tackle the deeply rooted issues, such a process will be long. In the interim, it is important that Miliband can make tangible propositions for victims and offenders alike. Just as the public condemn the rioters’ pursuit of instant gratification, as a corollary many seek instant gratification of their desire for retribution. Simply stating that the rioters were wrong will do little to abate this.
Cameron’s reactionary and populist response will prove only to be blunt and ineffective without a sincere appraisal and understanding of the causes that Miliband’s commission aspires to determine. So while he is right to demand an inquiry, criticisms of appearing soft on crime must be avoided as Miliband focuses on explanations that will only bear their fruit in the longer term.
The key challenge for Miliband is therefore to unfailingly demonstrate his belief in the ‘national conversation’ and to convince the wider public of its importance. The commission must truly resonate with the country if it is to gain the support and participation imperative to its success.
—————————————————————————————
Felicity Slater is a member of Progress
—————————————————————————————
The ‘inconvenient truth’ is that in exploring the causes of the riots and ‘deeply rooted issues’ there is a very real danger that basics like for most it had nothing to do with poverty, was largely opportunistic and done for fun will be missed.
There is a danger from looking for a bigger picture when the picture isn’t that big, including comments in the idiot media that the left is on the side of the rioters.
I suspect this was more to do with a few people having a fight which spread a few more and then all hell broke lose the phone rang and more people came down.
One idiot stated it’s due to poverty and hunger bullshit
hunger bullshit. hmmmn a telling phrase , hunger for what ? to be noticed?
to be loved back by the Totem commodities they steal ? by the money gained for selling stolen goods ? to be able to say ‘ look , I DID something ‘. These are ignorant people, we should help them, we can help them ., Yeah tricky times, as we are in danger of not being able to help us middle lot !
Tories out !!
There are two possible errors that we can make in judging these matters. One is to say that social-economic factors have no influence and the other is to say that they are an excuse for rioting.
Every prime minister in my lifetime has tacitly accepted that there is a complex link between social and economic deprivation and crime rates. My evidence is that these things are a factor in determining the budget of police authorities.
But rioters have free-will, and can-not shrug off responsibility for what they have done.
FREE WILL ! Good lord tell that to the advertisers and promoters of the commodities looted. Celebrities endorse for freebies , ( “look wot we got for nuffink” ) most of whom came from poverty but choose never to look back !
For 3 days the state lost control of the streets of the capital city. This has not happened in a modern democracy in decades. The Prime Minister, His deputy, the Home Secretary and the Mayor of London failed to grasp how serious the matter was. They offered no leadership when it was needed though all have indulged in post facto rhetoric. Ed Miliband was right to call for an inquiry and Harriet Harman was right to insist on its centrality. Every other riot in recent times has been followed by an inquiry. It was outrageous that for a whole week Cameron equivocated on this. Felicity Slater is right to highlight this clear differences between Miliband’s leadership and Cameron’s lack thereof.
I quite agreed with Ed Miliband that there should be a proper commission of inquiry to explore the causes of the riots.
The coalition government is total confused, the PM David Cameron focusing on culture and moral standard as the root of the riots shows his lack of understand of the society he claim he governing. That is the reason why he wants to import NY police chief to help him solve the problem. When he blames culture, the question we should be asking him is whose culture?
I also support that people who commit a crime should be punish, but any item to show government been tough on the rioters will not bring us to root of the problem.
Ed Miliband view on poverty and deprivation should not be wave of by the slogans of this government, In the article written by Zygmunt bauman he defined the riots as drive material need, because we are now society of consumer. Yes, his view of the situation is true; however, where I agreed with his opinion is that the definitions of have and not-having from what was in a century ago have changed. The conflict is no more on bread and rice. Then bread and rice are luxuries to the common. Today, our wants are defined with what people desired and most wanted in the modern day life. Where people are confused, not knowing what to do in the mist of plenty, because they are deprived of the opportunity to participate in the decision the shape their life. This is because the system has already marks out what its want those in it to be, therefore, the struggle to liberate themselves from the tyrants of the system result in conflict in diverse shapes.
We cannot rule out that, the drive to destroy, steal or setting on fire is not rooted on what people want to have and cannot have, their action make them happy because of the pleasure they derives in destroying or stealing what they cannot have, and in their believe violent is justified, believing that it is the only way to send message to the government. They use the word, government don’t listen to their voice. The most privilege blames the government not doing enough to cage them.
As Ed Miliband said long years of neglect and deprivation cannot be rule out. As we all know, there is endemic division between classes in UK, the society is divided between deserved and undeserved despite the equality acts and many amendment to the equality acts from government to government, the system is still engrave with stigma of division between communities and groups.
If governments are not careful we will find ourselves in the same battlegrounds of tribal wars between deserve and undeserved. There is a problem when the government start seeing the main course of the problem as culture and moral standard and believing that people are paid to be idle and to be coursing problem. The privilege is seeing themselves, as been squeezed at the middle without voice and the supper rich are untouchable. Then we are in danger of going the root of old conflicts.
My view on the solution to this problem is simple, compulsory education from age 2 to 18, total obliteration tiers of education (education for the privilege and less-privilege) from our education system, equal opportunity for all with equal abilities, law and order, make people to belong. People with equal abilities should have the same opportunity to progress to their highest position in their career without barrier.
Ed Miliband’s speech last Monday was generally observant and inciteful so why does he follow it with pathetic and weak media interviews where he declares sympathy for Cameron’s wishes for ‘National Service’ and ‘benefit cuts’ for those involved in the disturbances and is easily manipulated and subjugated by the interviewers? Why does he not challenge the wild and inaccurate claims made by them? Why does he assume that what they assert is the truth? Why does he seem incapable of realising that these interviewers (particularly BBC) are only interested in trashing the image of Labour (they’ve been doing it since ’97)? Every interview he does on TV comes over as feeble and unconvincing – which probably explains why he trails Cameron in the polls. Unfortunately, there is no one in the shadow cabinet that demonstrates passion or presence – they are all grey nondescripts in the eyes of the electorate. What a pathetic bunch! I fear, yet again, the PLP will be responsible for another Labour defeat.
see advertisers – they think they are so clever so hard on the heels of creativity and modern thought but only to prostitute those things .
Yesterday I saw this slogan : ‘vision is the art of seeing the invisible’ NO,
vision is seeing what is not yet visible . Not being a Super Hero but becoming a true and valid citizen I’m thinking of ,of course. I’m almost surprised that trainer/sportswear companies etc have not come out with a riot influenced commercial, I’ll bet they’ve thought it though…… all those kids wearing all those logos,all that free air time Wow ! All those who can actually read yet go on to be what ? art historians ? ( only to go on to teach more art historians ?) do me a favour ! If schools ,colleges, universities, turn ever more in to businesses,then you know,its just a business and doesn’t matter what gets taught . Never mind about ‘social service’ for offenders but what about say a year of mentoring,perhaps offset against student loan for pre undergraduates ?
so that those going blue collar route get help with maths/language. Most
academic courses are really about developing the mind and not vocational at all remember. Practical application can do this too to a large extent ,but this is not commonly acknowledged /understood ,this is the sort of thing that builds schism in our society,a snobbery of subject,
that is misplaced.
Why Ed is simple, no one will support what happened on our streets last week.
I think Ed is right to support David Cameron, however not all his face making slogans.