The Great Fires of London

In which columnists feebly try once again to make sense of the millionth or so riot of 2011.

As predictable as morning dew, columnists the world over are trying to make sense of the riots that have flipped London upside down, which if nothing else has given headline writers a great excuse to steal from early punk songs. The National Post's Tasha Kheiriddin, for example, blames the three-day uprising on, yep, the welfare state: “It is the government's fault - not for provoking people by cutting the fat, but for creating a large unsustainable welfare state in the first place, which eventually, inevitably, had to be rolled back.” She says the effect of such a robust welfare system is “actual dependency, on government programs and handouts,” that has led to “an entitlement mentality that erodes the notion of personal responsibility.” We'll agree that a lack of personal responsibility played a big role in these riots – as it does in every riot. But trying to link arson and looting to the NHS and jobseekers cheques is more than a bit of a stretch.

In a widely circulated column, The Telegraph's Mary Riddell concludes that “this was a riot waiting for an excuse,” given the rampant unemployment, poverty, lack of education, and other such ills that plague London's younger, darker-skinned populations. Not that these are race riots; they're just the symptom of a society that is “less equal in wages, wealth and life chances” than at any point after the stock market crash of 1929. “If there are no jobs for today’s malcontents and no means to exploit their skills, then the UK is in graver trouble than it thinks,” says Riddell. The only way to keep those kids from turning Tottenham into Mogadishu, then, is an emboldened welfare state, argues Riddell, to provide employment and education opportunities to those at risk of joining this so-called “lost generation.” 'Tis a bit of a shame the country can't come anywhere close to affording that – not with the billions spent on prepping London for the 2012 Olympics and other such flights of fancy.

Arriving at an even more depressing conclusion is The Globe and Mail's Doug Saunders, who sighs that the chaos “puts a dark punctuation mark on what had, until this weekend, been London’s brightest modern era.” With nearly one in five British youth identified as a NEET – “not in employment, education or training” – is it really a surprise that some might be persuaded to join in some good old fashioned anarchy? Given that the average rioter isn't even old enough to vote, we're inclined to bring up Andrew Potter's analysis of the Vancouver riot: that it's damn fun to smash glass and light fires, and all the better if you end up with a new pair of Nikes or an iPad or six. And heck, once a couple hundred kids get away with it, why shouldn't more join up? These aren't organized protests, there are no banners unfurled across streets calling for change. It's more a failure in policing to contain a youth population already hardened, by years of poverty and general disinterest from mainstream society, against such concepts as consequence and responsibility.