How Should We Remember Our Fallen Stars?

25^th June, 2009. I’m relaxing at home after a stressful couple of weeks of exams. I get a text from my sister and, after opening the message, I don’t believe what I’m reading and instantly flick on a news channel.

Sure enough, Michael Jackson’s dead.

A similarly bewildering moment happened on Sunday morning, when, opening up my computer, social networks were trending Whitney. And another star had passed too soon.

One of the advantages of this modern society is that the integration of technology allows not only this quick relay of information, but in these cases, a sentimental outpouring of emotion when we lose an influential figure.

However, with these new mediums of information, what is appropriate decorum when talking of the deceased? When famous personas have had their lives taken under a microscope as public property, how should that public remember them?

Case in point: sitting with a friend in a café last July, the radio broke the news that Amy Winehouse had passed away. The reporter’s very next words were: “The troubled star, who was known for her drug addictions and love life…” as though her singing career did not merit a mention. Amy has been defined by her misdemeanours.

With the death of Whitney Houston, this act of remembrance is called into question once again. When looking back at such an iconic songstress, should we look to her rise or fall?

Without doubt, the talent of the young Houston cannot be denied. Hailing from musical genes, Whitney was signed at the tender age of 19 after a performance in a Manhattan night club. Her eponymous debut was the biggest selling album by a debut artist when it was released in 1985.

Houston enjoyed seven consecutive number one singles, surpassing the record set by The Beatles, and had notched up over 200million album sales by the late 80s alone. Yet eclipsing even all of these staggering achievements, the resounding number ‘I Will Always Love You’ is the biggest selling single by a female of all time (and is sure to notch up another batch of sales posthumously).

Serene images were shattered with Houston’s decline into abuse of crack cocaine and marijuana. Her tumultuous marriage to Bobby Brown constantly attracted headlines and her once famed voice was broken.

Yet, which era of the star’s life should the public focus on?

Unfortunately, intrigue and bad news are always awarded more coverage: these are the stories with more layers, more depth, high interest and, immorally, make people feel much better about themselves. Even if Whitney had not been signed, there is the possibility that she, or countless others like her, like Amy, would have made headlines for their solvent abuse. They would have been paraded as examples of a breakdown in society, without a saving voice, so to speak.

Of course, perhaps without the fame, these people would not have resorted to drugs, without the attention, they may not have performed crazy stunts, such as hanging children over balconies. But whose fault is this? Are these people victims of self-nurtured decline, or of outer afflictions?

Society is constructed in such a way that we pressure a number of stars into depression, ruts, abuse. From music to film and beyond, pop culture means we are able to highlight the likes of Britney Spears, Macaulay Culkin, Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan as testimony to the breakdown culture that has been nurtured by modern life. Some, like Robert Downey Jr, make it back; other stars, like Kurt Cobain and Winehouse, never defeat their demons.

But do their devils add meaning to their work. In the case of ‘Nevermind’ by Nirvana, material dealt with lost loves, with ‘Back to Black’, the album can be seen as shaped from Winehouse’s indiscretions and media attention.

However, for the stars like Jackson and Houston, whose prime came before a spectacular fall, their records should be remembered and replayed without the clouds of rumour that have come to outshine their talents. For, certainly, these people became famous for their gifts, and should be thought of in this light.

In 2002, Houston told ABC's Diane Sawyer in an interview that: "The biggest devil is me. I'm either my best friend or my worst enemy."

Perceptive as this analysis is, perhaps the biggest devil to Houston, and to her fallen contemporaries, lies in public responsibility.

Just as we facilitate the rise of a star, we are compliant in their demise.

Remembering where I was when I heard of the deaths of these stars proves something: that these people touched our lives with their songs, their albums, or whatever their gifts. We have a public responsibility to keep that spirit of their talents alive.

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.