Miliband's War.

Labour once again proclaims itself new as the annual party conference gets underway in Liverpool.

In the largest speech of his leadership so far, Ed Miliband announced that there should be action taken against those companies who could be described as “predatory” and “asset stripping”. Mr Miliband outlined his latest vision for a greater Britain, by rewarding smaller companies and “grafters”, whilst also tackling a great number of issues either side-stepped or taken in the wrong direction by the current coalition.

Being elected leader of the party just over a year ago, Miliband is having to make a name for himself and trying to re-establish trust for his party. Although there are no explicitly new policies or announcements, his interview prior to the conference with Andrew Marr suggested that there need be a new stance.

Of course, this is to appear as contrary to the Tory opposition as possible: support for the coalition recently having plummeted according to some polls, particularly for Nick Clegg’s party.

Naturally, as Nick Robinson pointed out, opposition leaders - whether Labour or Tory - declare that they are on the side of hard working people who do the right thing.

In this way, Ed Miliband is pushing ahead with a revival of responsibility.

Almost as if the heralding of a new period of enfranchisement, the Labour leader introduced the initiative fully at today’s conference.

From companies to average citizens, the need to act for one’s community has never been clearer or on such an impressive scale of undertaking. Miliband has argued that companies who offer long term reinvestment and training should have tax rewards: and pointed to Rolls Royce as an example of such an enterprise that should be encouraged.

In addition, the speaker added that “Our first duty should be to help the person who shows responsibility.” He followed up on this by suggesting that those who helped out in their community should reap the rewards through such things as jumping up priority in the housing chain. There need be an introduction of the something for something ideal.

However, many are dissatisfied with this brash approach, insinuating that it was the Labour party themselves that adopted a doctrine of a “something for nothing” ideology and that mantel has continued to spread and debilitate Britons past their spell in Westminster power.

Whilst the speech appears well placed following the backdrop of riots and banking crises, there is belief that the Tory party only served as powderkeg to problems that had been bubbling under Labour administration.

A ComRes poll in the Independent on Tuesday showed 37% of the 1,000 voters questioned said they backed the Conservatives, against 36% for Labour and 12% for the Liberal Democrats. Just 24% agreed that Mr Miliband was a credible prime minister-in-waiting, against 57% who said he was not.

Although Miliband’s speech pledges Labour party to remain the politics of the people and to never again to advantage of the system, Baroness Warsi claims Mr Miliband is not able to promise such.

The Conservative co-chair brought forward the idea that Labour had latterly strangled the small business owners in 2008 through 2010 in particular. Furthermore, the Baroness proved poignant in the statement that "Ed Miliband can't deliver on these promises because his party left the country on the brink of bankruptcy. This is opportunistic rhetoric from a weak leader."

Meanwhile, Ed Balls has unveiled a five point plan for dealing with debt.

The scheme, which he would see introduced following the next elections, would include a VAT cut to encourage growth (similar to schemes trailed by Darling), tax breaks for small firms (not exactly reflected on having economic responsibility) and reinvesting bank bonus taxes in the community.

Whilst Mr Balls acceded to Labour’s previous mistakes, he described the current state of the economy, “the worst in his lifetime” and pointed to current Chancellor, George Osborne, as having the wrong “prescription”. He argued that having a growth plan, rather than a plan of spending cuts, could quickly put a stopper in the vicious circle of deficit and “secure an economic future”.

However, the Labour party has once again affirmed that great swathes of the Tory changes would continue even if they are revoted to power. In this sense, Labour is hiding behind the curtains on a great many of its policies: letting other people carry out the changes and then afterwards showing sympathy without action.

Should the party truly wish to get into power once more, they need stick firm to their principles and act on changes that would not have been introduced. Otherwise, confidence, as well as the economy, will not grow in any forecast. A war of principles vs popularity is underway.

Britain Burning: Cause and Consequence

With a certain apprehension, I write from just outside Manchester City Centre as the riots that have spread widely across the country are mounting for a fourth night of action: today, the first in which my city has been involved.

London and the rest of the UK are now under siege from within. Personal vendettas and localised looting is dominating cities nationwide with subsequent apparent anarchy. What began as an isolated incident in a London suburb on Saturday night (6/08/2011), has quickly and ferociously developed into the most diabolical scenes of rioting witnessed in this country in some decades. 

Trouble in Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Liverpool has been labelled ‘copycat’ behaviour, following the unparalleled waves of violence seen in London boroughs. The catalyst for this widespread outpouring of feeling was the shooting of one Mark Duggan. Whether one describes the actions as disaffected or a fuelled release of pent up frustration, there can be no apologies for the violence which has been directed at innocent members of the public, small business owners, and other people doing their daily business who now are incapacitated in some form.

Peaceful protests provide persons with an ample forum in which to highlight and showcase their grief and issues with public administrations. In general, they help in not only quelling dramatic attacks, but reflect nationwide sentiments that can be taken into account. Therefore, the march in Tottenham on Saturday afternoon was an event with justified merit that was later tarnished by mere opportunists and vandals. 

However, we need closer analyse underlying unrest that has plagued both the capital and certain national suburbs over the immediate period prior to these disasters. In Tottenham, the original focus of the violence, residents were becoming increasingly begrudging of police stop and search actions that are reported to have been widely unjustified and yielded few results for public safety. With the mounting power abuse that the police actioned in the surrounding areas, there became a unilateral belief that the scaremongering tactics were introduced to reduce crime and yet had intruded on lives to such an extent that police were subject of ridicule.

Of course, continual mistreatment and suspicion of youths in the past has led to a mounting air of mistrust that has featured predominantly as the violence has spread. In blaming a great deal of social problems as rising solely from those of young adult status, the support of those under-25 is understandable, even if not condonable. 

Moreover, Tottenham is an area that suffers rife unemployment. Together with later targeted Lewisham and Peckham (which were featured in a recent newspaper editorial as amongst the top 25 areas in the country for people out of work), onlookers are able to establish that the dissatisfaction is also fed off both lack of job prospects and the subsequent idle and sedentary lifestyle that comes hand in hand. Sparking of other social injustice only provided a platform for this plethora of misfortunes to manifest in physical outbursts.

In addition, spending and budget cuts amidst global recession, Eurozone crises and worldwide credit down-gradings only adds to the country’s financial woes. The widespread effects are that as well as unemployment, local facilities and amenities shut down so there are further disruptions and lack of distractions in daily life. Ironically, for all the attacks, no one has launched a mounted assault on big businesses at Canary Wharf. 

More to the point, the number of destroyed independent businesses is completely inexcusable: almost as if vengeance for those few in the area who were struggling with small enterprise pressures already. Two teenage girls speaking to a BBC reporter this morning said that “This is to show the rich that we can do what we want.” However, there appears no distinction between the rich and those who have private, small businesses that do not make the mega-buck revenue of which the girls naively spoke. 

Reverse dichotomy: this is certainly not the image of the Big Society that Cameron had in mind.

Although the public are being heard, this is no way to reverse any standing belief of disenfranchisement: but rather provides reason that tighter measures need be in force to govern the public. 

Army drafting, water cannons, tear gas, Tasers. Over the past 72 hours, there has been a great deal of social debate as to how the country’s management should proceed in order to restore order and maintain livelihoods for the majority. Options are many and certainly diverse.

However, it is not so much dealing with the immediate onslaught as the subsequent aftermath. Perhaps one of the poignant comments after pictures from London fires have been circulated was that “it looks as though London has been bombed, in a war”. Irrevocable damage has been incurred and the mounting costs are certainly a serious issue and concern for all involved. 

Already a country dealing with daily money misery, the cost of the cleanup will cause national taxes to be increased. The unprecedented need for extra dependence on the emergency services will rise the amount of money needed to be paid to the state. Stockbrokers will invest less as millions is wiped off those businesses who are unable to deal with the continued clashes, whilst insurance prices will rise in supposedly troubled cities, such as those aforementioned.

In an already struggling economy, the sense of any such riots is lost (if, for that matter, it existed in the first place). Despite this entry having acceded money issues as facilitating events while they were first brought before the public, there is only a continual problem in our nationals thus wasting their own money in the long run: ergo constructing a continuum of debt generation.

Taking a different slant, government officials convening emergency Cobra meetings and recalling parliament will for a long time yet have an image of an unruly mob in their mind when putting forward any changes to country legislation. While some may argue that it is government action which has caused unrest, these scenes have only served to further widen the divide in trust between those in Westminster and their citizens: tougher rule would appear a more democratic action in the interests of the majority.

Information released just today details that the bullet found wedged into a police officer’s radio, at the scene where Duggan was shot on Thursday, was in fact police issue. The most recent statement at this time is that there is no evidence of the victim having shot at the met. Since violence had pre-empted such a finding, there is no sense how this may yet effect the public feel towards the riots. Yet, this is also a crucial piece of information regarding how police will be viewed within their constituencies: little trust being honoured with unjustified action.

But more than these monetary and bureau escapades, the real consequence will be a loss of public sentiment and compassion, especially toward youths (as earlier mentioned, blanket punished). Living with the shells of buildings and lost businesses haunting high streets across the country will always conjur images of a week where citizens, in “a moment of madness” according to lawyers convening in courts today, simply took to wanton destruction to prove a public power without direction or motive. 

What began as a moving and socially meaningful demonstration, now a marred public effigy to anarchy.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-incident-map

The limitation of riots, moral questions aside, is that they cannot win and their participants know it. Hence, rioting is not revolutionary but reactionary because it invites defeat. It involves an emotional catharsis, but it must be followed by a sense of futility.
Martin Luther King, Jr.