I started writing this while on holiday in August, on the Isle of Arran. The Isle of Arran is a very long way from Tottenham. In fact, it is a very long way from anywhere, but especially, culturally, geographically, and socially, from those parts of London and other cities across the UK where similar disturbances occurred, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Salford, Liverpool, and Nottingham.
When I first heard about it, my reaction was flippant – no sooner do we leave the country, than rioting breaks out! And indeed, throughout the whole episode, we only heard what the BBC saw fit to tell us. Nevertheless, it is often the case that “distance lends enchantment to the view” and I believe it is possible, even at that distance (geographical) then, and at this distance (in time) now, to come to some conclusions about why these riots happened.
The first, and most obvious, answer to that question is that there was an incident which seemed to have involved the police and a black man with possibly an illegal firearm, in a taxi. This ended with the man being shot dead, in circumstances which were far from clear and which are now the subject of an official inquiry. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the episode, which this enquiry will eventually uncover, we must never forget that police firearms officers often only have a fraction of a second to make a life or death decision, in real-time, with no slow-motion replays, no “hawkeye”, and on those decisions may depend not only their own lives, but those of their colleagues and the general public.
Sadly, the key word that people seem to have taken and remembered from that episode, is “black”. It shouldn’t be the case, and of course there are always people who will argue that black is white and white is black, and vice versa. But the fact remains that the spark of the original demonstration was a perceived injustice to the black community by the police, set in the context of a history (real and perceived) of such injustices.
Following on from that, though, the spread of the riots is symptomatic of a wider and more political agenda than just the death of one man. I say “wider”, but I guess the word I really mean is “deeper”. The people in these depressed areas (we should note at the outset the coincidence of the areas of rioting with areas of deep economic deprivation, lack of prospects, and low expectations) would have seen the killing of a black man as in some sense a symbol of the oppression of all black men, whether that oppression was legal, political, economic, or all of these. Whether or not you think they were correct in this is sort of beside the point. The point is, they believed it, and it was enough to spark off their anger into a riot.
What was obvious to me, even at a distance, was that the Government has quite clearly either misjudged, misunderstood, or deliberately, completely and wilfully ignored the seething anger in these areas (and in other areas, too, but we will come to that) People were already very angry with the political process, and with politicians generally, from the time when it became clear, from revelations in The Daily Telegraph, that the majority of the political class were on the take, with their snouts deep in the trough. Subsequent media revelations about how the current ruling class were hugger-mugger with Rupert Murdoch, and the culture of rule at one remove by the editors of tabloid newspapers and their barons that successive Governments have been too timid to tame, have done nothing to restore faith in politics and democracy as a way of getting things done – quite the reverse, in fact.
Into this volatile brew you need to add the inconclusive election result. I have said this before, and I’ll say it again, but both major parties and the Liberal Democrats fought vacuous negative campaigns in 2010, aimed more at media presentation (especially Nick Clegg) and damage limitation and knocking the opposition than at imparting a vision of our future that we could vote for. Thus, in the circumstances, it was unsurprising that those who could be bothered to turn out and vote were unable to demonstrate conclusively which set of oafs they loathed the more. This, of course, paved the way for the “Coalition”, with no mandate, which has, despite its lack of public approval, proceeded to implement savage, radical and far-reaching policies which were in no-one’s manifesto, have hit the people in these economically depressed areas hardest, and of course have made people yet more disillusioned with the democratic process.
Add to this the almost totally supine uselessness of Her Majesty’s official opposition and you get to the stage where it is, in many ways, unremarkable that people are taking to the streets. Now I know I have said, on this blog, before, that what it would take is a few bricks through the windows of 10 Downing Street to wake up the Government, but I was not being entirely serious. I certainly never imagined, when I wrote in my short story The Last of England, in October 2010, about a vision of a post-crash, dysfunctional, failed-state England, that it would all start to come true so soon.
The danger with “direct action” of course, is that what starts out as a sensible, peaceful demonstration inevitably attracts all sorts of unsavoury hangers-on, the likes of “Black Block”, who think that the way to smash capitalism is to start with the bus shelters, not to mention the undercover police and MI5 agents provocateur whose purpose probably is similar, though with official approval. Either way, the event degenerates into a violent shambles and this makes it easy for the Government to smear the organisers and rubbish the whole premise of it, off the back of the attendant violence. Conveniently forgetting that the Government probably caused it in the first place, if by “caused” you mean “creating a situation where people feel that direct actions and demos are the only way to make their voice heard.”
This Government, and its lapdogs in the Liberal Democrats, must know the effect their policies are having. People see the poorest and the most disadvantaged in our society being forced to pay for the mistakes of a rich elite of bankers, bond salesmen, and arbitrageurs, who, together with politicians, media moguls and celebrities, are carrying on exactly as before and either avoiding paying taxes and/or awarding themselves 49% pay increases. They may well continue to pump out garbage about “The Big Society” and “we’re all in this together” but, in reality, their policies have the effect of divide and rule, creating a nasty, bigoted, xenophobic racist society that despises the weak, the poor, the homeless, the unemployed and the disabled.
So when Mr Cameron stood up on his hind legs and said “there is something sick in our society”, I am afraid it is he who is the disease, not the cure, his Government which is the mortician and not the doctor. If he is a doctor, he is Doctor Death, Doctor Shipman.
And I repeat, the Government knows this. They are not stupid. They have been deliberately targeting the effects of the cuts on poorer areas, because their ideology says “small government good”, and they believe (wrongly in economic terms alone, never mind any moral consideration) that cuts should be inflicted on poor people, and that poor people should pay for the errors of the rich.
Cameron is also right in another, unintended sense, one he would never admit to of course; there is something sick in society, and that “something” is the materialism, the consumerism, call it what you like. But if you take people who have sod all in terms of possessions and sod all in life to look forward to, and you blast them relentlessly with the message that your worth to society is how much stuff you own and how much money you have and how famous you are, and you dangle in front of their eyes the vision of the latest trainers, the latest mobile, the latest high-spec computer equipment, and expensive booze, and then you say “not for the likes of you, though.”
In olden times, people would have saved up for such things, developed a work ethic, got a job, and saved up for them. In areas where they are lacking in work, ethics and savings, it is hardly surprising that people take advantage of a bit of civil unrest to go shopping in their local Tescos with a house-brick. Understanding why it might happen doesn’t amount to condoning it, of course. Ironically, in these areas, as well, often the only people who do manage to develop a work ethic are the Muslim shopkeepers, members of another cadre of society which has also been the target of government-sponsored bigot training.
And the government want consumerism of course – they want people to go out and spend money that they haven’t got on tat they can’t afford and don’t really need, to get them out of the economic shitstorm that has blighted the world since capitalism first started to come unstuck in 2008. Their economic “recovery” depends on it, because that will start the next cycle of “boom” and save their miserable hides at the ballot box. Or so they think. So, creating a desire without the corresponding means of people being able to fulfil it is always a dangerous game. If you put a system under undue pressure, it will always go bang at the weakest point, which is what happened when the various looters and hangers on decided to employ the precepts of capitalism without the tedious necessity of any money changing hands!
So, on the subject of the riots, what I think happened is what Malcolm Gladwell would have called a “Tipping Point”. The tipping point is when a number of factors come together at a critical point and together act upon each other to bring about momentous change. So we have the inept or stretched policing; the people who feel totally excluded with the political process, alienated from politics and politicians; the rich and the famous taking the piss and hoping the rest of us won’t notice them avoiding their taxes, banking their bonuses, and fiddling their expenses; the government bringing in cuts and radical “reforms” no-one ever voted for; and you add a single flashpoint such as a black man being shot by police in questionable circumstances, and it all goes bang.
Of course, it suits the Government to present the riots as criminality, pure and simple. There is no doubt that there was an element of opportunist criminality and maybe even more organised looting, perhaps linked to drugs. Young kids looting the local off licence “just because we can”. The looters have realised that policing is only ever policing by consent, and if they take away that consent, there is nothing that the police can do about it, despite Cameron talking tough and mentioning water cannon, short of turning the whole country into a vast armed camp (which may well be government policy anyway!) if the rule of law breaks down.
The other thing the Government hopes to do as well, alongside draconian and inappropriate sentences, which will doubtless be appealed and overturned, is to try and crack down on the use of social media and the internet to organise anti-government activity. So the likes of UK Uncut will see the impact of this on their peaceful protests against tax avoidance and government cuts, because as far as the likes of Cameron are concerned, anti-government activity is anti-social activity. So the Government will seek to wring what advantage they can from this damp sponge of a response, because there is no opportunity that this Government will pass up to curtail our individual liberties.
One of the more disturbing aspects of the Government response has been the depressing numbers of petitions on that potential bigots’ charter, the e-petitions web site, demanding that rioters be evicted, have their benefits cut, etc etc ad nauseam.
I had grave reservations about this site from the start (although I did actually use it for an attempted petition myself, about Rooftree and social housing, because for all its flaws, anything is better than nothing in the fight against homelessness) and I believe the Government has made a grave mistake in promising to consider having a debate in the House of Commons for any petition that gains 100,000 signatures, notwithstanding what I said earlier about the lack of involvement in the political process. The way to political involvement is to have policies that people can vote for and to enact them for the good of all, not to have some sort of x-factor contest where each week we get to vote off our least favourite policy. The flawed nature of the site was already coming home to haunt the Government in the form of many duplicate petitions on the site calling for the return of the death penalty.
When I got back from Arran, and originally set out to type up these notes, there was a petition on the site which was, already then up to 78,000 signatures, urging the Government to cut the benefits of those who rioted. (Or who were convicted of rioting). Clearly the bigots have not thought this through. If you cut their benefits, and/or evict them, as some have suggested, if they live in social housing, you condemn them to live by stealing or begging on the streets, and turn an occasional aberration into a perpetual occupation, and inflict a double punishment to boot. Nobody has (or should have) any problem with people convicted, by due process, of unlawful activity, receiving a just and commensurate sentence in accordance with the law. Anything on top of that is spite and retribution.
Also, people on benefits often have dependents; are they, too, to be punished because they didn’t stop their “breadwinner” from getting involved with the rioting? Are we going to evict a whole family because one of their children got caught up in the mob? And finally, and most sinister of all, if you stop someone’s benefits because they took part in anti-social activity, what’s next? Stopping someone’s benefits or evicting them if they protest legitimately against Government policy, a policy that might have been responsible for them ending up on benefits in the first place.
So, Mr Cameron, if you really want to know what it is that’s sick in our society, you need to be looking at more inclusion, less division, fewer cuts and more help in the depressed areas, stop and reverse the policies that nobody voted for – or go back to the country with a manifesto this time that actually says what it is you are going to do; don’t peddle the message that materialism is the be-all and end-all of life, and resist the temptation to use justice as Judge Dredd style revenge and retribution. No disproportionate sentencing, no gimmicks such as bringing in Bill Brattan, and pause to consider for a moment why people should take moral lectures from a party that was in cahoots with phone hackers, drug pushers, and dominatrixes.
But of course he won’t. Even though things won’t get better on their own. Certainly not with this lot in power. It’s not Britain that is broken it’s capitalism. Or at least the sort of capitalism that the Tories believe in. You can argue all you like about whether the Tories are cutting too fast, too soon (and all of the evidence, including that from the excellent blogger Sue Marsh, in her Diary of a Benefit Scrounger, seems to indicate they are) but nevertheless, Labour’s avowed policy is now little different.
Sue Marsh says:
2008 - Credit Crunch. Not just here, but all around the developed world. Starting with the sub-prime mortgage collapse in the US, we all know just how horribly our banks crashed and that America, the EU states and others were all just as badly affected as we were. Our dependence on the financial markets left us more exposed than some, but by the end of 2009, though a mixture of stimulus and all-time-low interest rates, the UK posted the following growth figures :
In the 3 months to February 2010 the U.K. economy grew by 0.4%.
In Q2 of 2010 the economy grew by 1.2% the fastest rate of growth in 9 years.
In Q3 of 2010 figures released showed the UK economy grew by 0.8%; this was the fastest Q3 growth in 10 years.
-The UK economy was growing at an annualised rate of 4.4% - the fastest rate of any EU country - when Osborne took over.
-The deficit fell by over 20 billion in the same period, largely because of this strong growth.
It wasn't coincidence. Schemes to support the property market and car industry kept the economy ticking over, while mortgage protection schemes kept home owners afloat and business schemes stopped businesses folding.
Then, by the end of 2010, we started to see the impact of Osborne at the treasury and his austerity disaster. As stimulus was stripped away, VAT hit ordinary people right in the pocket and cuts started to bite, growth drifted away.
There has been no growth at all for 9 months. Since the end of 2010 (Q4). This would be painful enough, but with inflation recently reaching 5.2%, and average yearly cuts to services of 6%, it feels disastrous to ordinary people trying to make ends meet.
But even if Labour were back in power, it wouldn’t make much difference: we are where we are, and we still have to face up to the fact that capitalism as we know it may not be sustainable. Given that no mainstream politicians anywhere are willing to admit this, and given that there is no way of engaging in the political process – or at least people believe that there is no way – it is not surprising that the latest manifestation of direct action has taken the form of the various “Occupy” movements, the most recent of which is the occupation of the area in front of St Paul’s Cathedral.
My own personal view, my own suggested solution for a way out of the mess we have gotten ourselves into, this crisis of capitalism, would be for a massive growth in the Social Enterprise sector of the economy. We can all see things which need doing, all around us.
The social enterprise sector needs to grow to become as significant as the public or private sector. Social enterprise is where companies are set up to do worthwhile things and their profits (instead of being spirited abroad to fund the lifestyles of the super-rich) are re-invested for the good of all of us. Looking around, we can all see things that need to be done, which would benefit everybody. For instance, one model of the Rooftree idea has the individual communities as self-supporting social enterprise companies.
Whatever the answer, it is clear we need something, and soon. I don't think Cameron and his cronies realise just how much they are playing with fire here. We aready have a situation where there is widespread distrust, cynicism and sheer disgust at the political classes and their shenanigans over expenses and phone hacking. We have seen demonstrations in Greece, we have also - significantly - seen the riots here (admittedly there were multiple causes there, and many hanging on the coat-tails, but there was also an element of frustration and anger at politics) We have seen the rise of single issue pressure groups, aided and abetted by the government's glib announcement of a parliamentary debate for anyone who can get 100,000 signatures on a petition. We've seen the rise of extremist parties, recruiting people who already feel the democratic process holds nothing for them. Some, if not all, of these elements are part of an extremely volatile concoction that could go bang at any moment.
Whoever these people are on the steps of St Pauls, and I agree that some of them are probably “the usual suspects” or whatever it was somebody called them - though even in that case, they may still have some valid points to make - they are at least trying to draw attention to the problem and propose some fixes. Their initial demands, in case anyone has missed them, are:
1 The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them.
Well, you and I both seem to agree with the first bit of this one, whether or not we agree that the steps of St Paul's is the best venue to thrash out a way forward
2 We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world.
I assume they are meaning the other occupations (ie Wall Street) If they meant, for instance, the Israeli occupation of Palestine, then that's a different matter, but I can't think they mean that...
3 We refuse to pay for the banks’ crisis.
I have been asking for three years now why poor people should be expected to pay for the mistakes of rich people, and no-one has yet given me a good answer.
4 We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people.
I have no problem in agreeing with that, especially since UK Uncut highlighted the massive amounts of tax avoidance by multi-national companies based here
5 We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate.
Yes, especially the energy regulators!
6 We support the strike on the 30th November and the student action on the 9th November, and actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop wars and arms dealing.
I would say that these are currently the only way effectively to oppose the government's policies, especially since the official opposition and its leader give a very convincing impression of a rabbit caught in the headlights of an oncoming juggernaut. But this is not a healthy situation for democracy to be in.
7 We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich.
This is going to be difficult to achieve, but I do think they have a point.
8 We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression.
Oppression is a relative term of course, but at least their hearts are in the right place.
9 This is what democracy looks like. Come and join us!
If I could, I would! But for those who cannot make it in person, the protestors are now developing their “maqnifesto” online. And if Cameron had any sense he would be trying to include these people in the democratic process instead of pursuing policies that exclude them to keep his chums in the City happy, the same City chums who have been leaning on St Pauls and the BBC. Before something really nasty happens as people get more and more teed off. Ordinary people, not just eco-warriors. We could be seeing Britain in the grip of a pre-revolutionary fervour. Rising inflation, unemployment, disenchantment with the political process and the scapegoating of outsiders as being responsible for all society’s ills; it’s not quite yet Weimar Germany, but it’s getting there.
Plus, with the glowing exception of the two Canons who have now resigned over the issue of the Church of England potentially using violence and bailiffs to evict the protesters by force, the clerics of St Paul’s have been disappointingly un-Christian over the protest, first of all in insisting that they had to close the Cathedral for health and safety reasons, and now apparently colluding with the likes of Boris Johnson and the Corporation of London, to launch legal action.
Of course, it’s perfectly fine to camp outside St Paul’s if there’s a Royal Wedding, apparently, but camping is frowned upon if you are someone protesting against the Government. The same double standard was applied to Brian Haw.
As Richard Murphy has pointed out:
The Dean of St Pauls has said that: he had "met members of the chapter that governs St Paul’s on Thursday evening. As a result of that meeting, and reports received today from our independent health, safety and fire officers, I have written an open letter to the protestors this afternoon advising them that we have no lawful alternative but to close St Paul’s cathedral until further notice."
Hmmm, let’s see the sort of people who govern St Paul’s. Of course there are the clergy. They’re listed in here.
But the St Paul’s Foundation gives more clue about who really influence things. It’s trustees are:
Chairman
Sir John Stuttard
Trustees
The Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, Dean of St Paul’s
Dame Helen Alexander DBE
Lord Blair of Boughton
Roger Gifford
John Harvey
Joyce Hytner OBE
Gavin Ralston
Carol Sergeant CBE
John Spence OBE
According to the Dean these are the people who will be replying to #occupylondon.
So let’s see what they do:
Chairman
Sir John Stuttard PWC partner, Former Lord Mayor of London.
Trustees
The Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, Dean of St Paul’s
Dame Helen Alexander DBE Deputy chair of the CBI, director of Centrica plc
Lord Blair of Boughton Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Roger Gifford Investment banker, big in City of London
John Harvey – Not clearly identified
Joyce Hytner OBE – Theatre director
Gavin Ralston Global Head of Product and leading international asset manager at Schroder Investment Management
Carol Sergeant CBE - Chief Risk Director at Lloyds TSB, formerly Managing Director for Regulatory Process and Risk at the FSA
John Spence OBE – Former Managing Director, Business Banking, LloydsTSB
They don't sound like the sort of people to me who would be overly interested in exploring alternatives to capitalism, more like they would still be clinging to the wreckage of the status quo by their fingertips long after the rest of us have drowned. Like the media, which has been so spooked by the Occupy London protestss that they have had to resort to running non-stories based on their use of thermal imaging cameras to “prove” that not all of the tents were occupied overnight!
Take heed, David Cameron. As a well-known past Dean of St Paul's once said - "seek not to send for whom the bell tolls: it tolls for thee". And it tolls for capitalism. If we want to protect our liberal democratic values, we should be moving to bring the Occupy London protestors inside the tent, not shutting the doors on them.
