The reasons for the riots and why they weren’t that surprising
| September 8, 2011 | Posted by Joanna Starzynski under international, national |
The riots from the 6th – 10th of August weren’t too great a surprise for me, especially when I considered the economic situation of this country and why people “stealing” or “bending” the government system feel that they can get away with almost anything.
Some facts
Currently, people living on benefits (with 2 children) can claim up to £300-a-week, when somebody who works 40-hours-a-week on minimum wage (£5.93) can make around £240; minus tax and expenses and it works out as less money, despite the fact they work rather than remain at home. The point of the matter is that nobody is encouraged to work for what they get in the UK; if you work hard, say a job as a doctor, your wage doesn’t seem to justify the amount of effort you put into your work, especially when you consider the 40% higher rate taxation taken from people who earn over £50,000.
So, it’s people who probably have little to no work (of course I’m making a generalisation) who steal for a pointless cause; possibly when they already claim the dole. No, I don’t think they should be put in prison and claim yet more of the country’s hard-earned taxes. I believe they should work for their benefits, for a somewhat mutually salubrious cause. This society no longer believes that you have to work to be able to reward yourself. The reason for the economic downturn of this country is due to the lack of morals and an absence of respect for people who work hard.
Moreover, the high level of illegal immigration in this country is also a continuing problem that may have sparked these riots, as illegal aliens can ultimately claim benefits for doing very little. They can have a better standard of living doing nothing in our country than working hard in their own. The statistics show that the areas of origin for the rioters are mainly in London and Manchester, where immigration settlements are highest in the UK. These immigration statistics are presented here; although the evidence may not wholly be reliable.
Why the riots aren’t as bad as they seem
Many people believe that the ‘Credit Crunch’, or the modern-day recession, is now over; well it isn’t! When US President Barack Obama announces his nation has lost its AAA credit rating, you know that the world is still firmly stuck in financial squalor and that things can only get worse. As well as this, when shops, from large businesses to small locals, continue to shut down, it is another indication that we’re not out of the frying pan yet.
However, go back 80 years or so to 1929, when the Wall Street Crash first hit the US and when people were queuing in dole queues for food; German money became utterly redundant. So considering most people are living relatively comfortable lifestyles nowadays, in comparison things aren’t that bad.
There is however one major statistic which purports that 52.1% of the rioters were aged 18 – 24, which in turn suggests that since this age group is most closely linked with claiming benefits, and that the riots were in fact encouraged by the changing benefits system of England over the past 20 years. However, some argue that a number of the rioters were students struggling to afford university fees, yet these events took place before David Cameron hiked the fees up to £9,000. The last little irony is that if most people who committed these crimes were aged between 18 and 24, then it was potentially the brightest and most aspiring section of society that was rioting, when their thieving and vandalism could have been stopped, if given a worthwhile pursuit.
There are many causes and a number of catalytic factors contributing to why these riots took place, but in this current climate, be it economically affected or media controlled, there is one thing for sure. It needs to change! So, as a word of warning to all readers who haven’t given up reading what may be a series of loose connections by this point; be wary that the economic downturn could turn into something much, much worse.
Your first paragraph seems to me to be an excellent argument for greatly increasing the minimum wage – after all, it’s barely possible to live on benefits, so why should it be harder to live on a wage? I agree, we do need more incentivisation to work – therefore, I propose state controlled work projects, paying a moderate wage (say, £8/hr), which would be open to anyone, past which Lenin’s principle of ‘if you choose not to work, you choose not to eat’ would apply.
One of the main reasons for the recession is the dependence on Wall Street and the private sector’s need for a profit margin – without this margin, for instance in a state-controlled workplace, wages could be higher on average without reducing productivity. Also, with the economy no longer tied in with the performance of important private sector companies which the state has no control over, there would be less worry about recession – and this could spell an end to the use of this awful ‘boom and bust’ policy.
Explain how illegal immigrants claim benefits. Identity theft? Anyhow, it is not possible to claim them without the state being aware of your existence (in theory). However, I believe that the country needs to stop seeing immigration as a bad thing – most immigration brings in a greater workforce, not to mention the extra demand created by their existence – although a proposal of a removal of all immigration limits may be a little extreme for the xenophobes amongst us.
The German problem initially had very little to do with the WSC. I’ll take the opportunity to remind you that the Treaty Of Versailles ultimately left Germany economically crippled, especially with the loss of most of its productive potential and unreasonable debt levels. Although the US calling in its debts did send it into a second depression after Stresemann had done pretty well in revitalising the country, the point at which German money was worthless was a few years before the crash, when they were still using the original Mark.
I will once again disagree with you and say that the level of youth rioting is not significant – I’m sure that if one was to conduct a survey into the level of general political activism for various age groups, you would find that said age group would also come out as the most politically active anyway.
I do, however, agree that the economic downturn could worsen – the level of borrowing is unsustainable, and the development of some economies into major players who create extra demand for some scarce/semi-scarce resources (oil and meat respectively) means that the expectation on Wall Street for profit margins to consistently improve is unreasonable.
I think the main point of all this is that stockbroking is not a legitimate profession – it takes from the economy rather than giving – and the desire for profit is ultimately the main problem of the global economy. Therefore, nationalisation is the way forward.
(The end may seem a little fragmented, but I’m in a hurry)