Bonkers Britain
Not surprisingly, the response to last week's widespread looting and violence - has been a bout of national soul searching - often led by the press and media.
Many of the contributions I've read - or watched on TV - have been boring and predictable - with people trying to justify their views - which are fixed and unchanging.
A few have been inspiring - but normally because the people involved are speaking from their own experience - and are not trying to prove a point, especially a party political point.
The final category is reserved for people who are plainly a little bit bonkers - who are actually part of the problem - because they are out to find a handy scapegoat.
As an example of 'Bonkers Britain' I offer the following from a chap named Peter Oborne - who writes regularly for the Telegraph newspaper.
"The rioters who have rampaged through the streets of Britain over the past seven days were the children of Tony Blair. Many of them were born under Tony Blair. They went to school under Tony Blair. They learnt their system of savage values and greed under Tony Blair. They are the product of the policies of Tony Blair.
So what happened? What explains the savage irony that New Labour, a movement that was supposed to do so much good, created instead so much evil and despair? This is the urgent question that David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband must each try to answer as they get to grips with the horror of last week.
At the heart of this problem lies New Labour’s approach to the welfare state. Gordon Brown developed a social security system that entrenched dependency and trapped the unemployed in poverty. Certainly he gave them more money – the benefits to which a single mother is entitled rose by 85 per cent under New Labour.
But he made one crucial mistake as he set out to create a Labour client state. He did not give people hope or self-respect. Indeed, as Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is starting to discover, Brown made it economically irrational for many people to seek work, thus turning unemployment into a way of life. I would guess that many of the young men and women drawn into last week’s frenzy come from families where there have been no jobs for generations."
Now I have no problem with writers writing in strong, colourful language - because it helps capture the readers' attention - and showing a bit of passion is a sign the author really cares - about his or her subject.
And of course some of the policies of the last Labour government do need to be debated and criticised - on the basis of what they actually achieved - rather than what they set out to achieve.
The problem is that Peter Oborne's piece is not a polemic, a strongly worded political argument - it's just a personal, vituperative attack - written in such a way that can only make matters worse.
In fact - he comes across as if he wants to smash a few windows himself!
But more to the point - he's completely wrong - things are a tad more complicated than Peter would have us believe.
Because on the evidence so far - many of the looters were not poor and dispossessed - many are in good jobs or in full-time education - and come from stable, relatively comfortable backgrounds.
In which case why pretend that writing such hateful, uninformed drivel - is a serious contribution to an important public debate?
Many of the contributions I've read - or watched on TV - have been boring and predictable - with people trying to justify their views - which are fixed and unchanging.
A few have been inspiring - but normally because the people involved are speaking from their own experience - and are not trying to prove a point, especially a party political point.
The final category is reserved for people who are plainly a little bit bonkers - who are actually part of the problem - because they are out to find a handy scapegoat.
As an example of 'Bonkers Britain' I offer the following from a chap named Peter Oborne - who writes regularly for the Telegraph newspaper.
"The rioters who have rampaged through the streets of Britain over the past seven days were the children of Tony Blair. Many of them were born under Tony Blair. They went to school under Tony Blair. They learnt their system of savage values and greed under Tony Blair. They are the product of the policies of Tony Blair.
So what happened? What explains the savage irony that New Labour, a movement that was supposed to do so much good, created instead so much evil and despair? This is the urgent question that David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband must each try to answer as they get to grips with the horror of last week.
At the heart of this problem lies New Labour’s approach to the welfare state. Gordon Brown developed a social security system that entrenched dependency and trapped the unemployed in poverty. Certainly he gave them more money – the benefits to which a single mother is entitled rose by 85 per cent under New Labour.
But he made one crucial mistake as he set out to create a Labour client state. He did not give people hope or self-respect. Indeed, as Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is starting to discover, Brown made it economically irrational for many people to seek work, thus turning unemployment into a way of life. I would guess that many of the young men and women drawn into last week’s frenzy come from families where there have been no jobs for generations."
Now I have no problem with writers writing in strong, colourful language - because it helps capture the readers' attention - and showing a bit of passion is a sign the author really cares - about his or her subject.
And of course some of the policies of the last Labour government do need to be debated and criticised - on the basis of what they actually achieved - rather than what they set out to achieve.
The problem is that Peter Oborne's piece is not a polemic, a strongly worded political argument - it's just a personal, vituperative attack - written in such a way that can only make matters worse.
In fact - he comes across as if he wants to smash a few windows himself!
But more to the point - he's completely wrong - things are a tad more complicated than Peter would have us believe.
Because on the evidence so far - many of the looters were not poor and dispossessed - many are in good jobs or in full-time education - and come from stable, relatively comfortable backgrounds.
In which case why pretend that writing such hateful, uninformed drivel - is a serious contribution to an important public debate?
