Home » Posts tagged 'social justice'
Tag Archives: social justice
A "decade of decline" is a problem, but so is Labour's "buy now, pay later" approach
A massive problem is that none of the political parties in the UK are trusted on the economy. Many ‘real’ Labour voters are tired and disgusted at Lord Mandelson’s desire to put the economy above social justice. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. I think this is actually very offensive and Lord Mandelson is talking unmitigated shit. When you consider that in real life, a far cry from a millionaire’s pad in a posh part of London, many people are deprived of basic legal advice on housing, employment or welfare benefits because their law centre has shut down, you’ll get a feel for how incredibly insensitive this comment is. The reality is many disabled people have had their benefits withdrawn, and many of these decisions are being overturned on appeal. Some people have even committed suicide. This is part of Labour’s problem.
Another big problem is that, whatever you feel about the ultimate benefits or outcome of the Iraq War, many feel that the evidence is consistent with the reason for us going to war sold by Tony Blair was a lie. This is a ‘trust’ issue which Labour is paying the penalty for. But, whatever Ed Balls’ justified record in ‘being right on the economy’, he is not considered by the public as particularly trustworthy on the economy. Like all of the Conservatives’ criticisms, there is more than an element of truth despite a lot of misleading bluster. If you strip away the attack that Gordon Brown “raided our pensions”, there are genuine questions about pension funds. Gordon Brown also “did sell cheap”, although it turned out Osborne also sold cheap. However, it’s Labour’s “buy now, pay later” approach to the economy which is a huge problem. The argument that the deficit exploded due to Labour putting an emergency capital injection in investment banks is correct, but so is the accusation, first voiced by Vince Cable, that Labour encouraged a debt-fuelled boom in the housing sector. It is also true that Labour contributed to a poorly regulated situation in securitised mortgage products. Whoever is responsible for ‘crashing the car’, it happened under Labour’s watch; hence the potential efficacy of the Conservatives’ campaigning message, “Do you really want to hand the keys back to the people who crashed the car?” Labour is also unable to take a moral stand on PFI, the “private finance initiative”. This was sold to the public as a good way of investing in the infrastructure, and it was sold to bankers as a good way of making money through loans at market-uncompetitive rates. The end result is that hospitals have been cripped by the debts, meaning that some are not financial viable. This happened on Labour’s watch, despite John Major’s government having introduced a PFI ‘thinktank’ in 1995, and George Osborne having carried on with the PFI programme only last year. We as a society are still paying the penalty for it.
Labour was also good at helping multinational companies. It gave ATOS the contract for the outsourcing of benefits, so ATOS can in actual fact be shot as the messenger. There is a good economic rationale why Labour might claim we are about to enter a “lost decade”, as the economic ingredients in the mix are exactly the ones Japan faced (and which contributed to Japan’s decline). Fundamentally, the picture is of a highly taxed nation resorting to the levers of quantitative easing to keep going. An immediate solution which would helped to boost consumer demand tomorrow is perhaps a slash in the VAT rate; it is well known that a 1% cut in corporation tax is neither here nor there. But Labour is still more than happy to keep its corporate friends happy, ahead of workers. Take for example Liam Byrne’s public decision to help the Government implement the rushed legislation on workfare, which Ian Mearns had to resign over. There is admittedly a problem in here that it is alleged that other people, including Ed Miliband, might have intervened to maintain party discipline, but it goes to show what core voters in Labour are up against. Also a problem is moves afoot to make it easier to sack people, and to make the award for unfair dismissal less in amount. Labour, if it doesn’t address who it represents, will find it in fact represents no-one.
The theme of “starvation in the midst of plenty” is also seen in the privatisation of the NHS. The legal instruments which put the NHS out for competitive tendering will come into effect on 1 April 2013. The public appear to be sleepwalking into this situation, but some members of the public may be genuinely apathetic. Most health policy experts have warned that a privatised NHS could lead to a badly fragmented system, making it less likely to deliver “comprehensive care”, but it is likely that an oligopoly of private healthcare companies will be able to secure a healthy profit notwithstanding. A similar phenomenon is also seen in access-to-justice, introduced earlier. While it is true that the high street law centres are facing severe cutbacks, the City law firms are generally doing very well, delivering very healthy profits and revenues. So, in fact, it is not entirely true that this will be a “decade of decline”, despite this being Labour’s latest populist campaigning message, while some people are doing “very nicely, thank you.” Labour may make progress in highlighting the genuine falls in living standards, but it forgets its core voters it is in deep trouble.
Is it right for Labour "not to do God", nor even social justice?
Perhaps religion and politics don’t mix, but there is a certainly an appetite for moral and religious matters amongst some of the wider electorate at large. For ages, right wing critics have emphasised that the right wing “does” religion too, and the left does not have a monopoly on moral or religious issues. A fewer number on the left likewise feel that the right does not have a monopoly on business or enterprise, as they pursue, despite all the odds, the movement of “responsible capitalism”. In amidst all the turmoil of the implementation of the recommendations of the Leveson report, or furore about whether there was an ‘excess number of deaths’ at Mid Staffs (and if so, what to do about it), the Catholic Church elected a new Pope. Pope Francis has said that he wants “a poor Church, for the poor” following his election as head of the world’s 1.2bn Catholics on Wednesday. He said he chose the name Francis after 12-13th Century St Francis of Assisi, who represented “poverty and peace”. Spectators of UK politics will be mindful of the speech made by Margaret Thatcher on her election, for the first time, as Prime Minister outside Downing Street in 1979. Pope Francis urged journalists to get to know the Church with its “virtues and sins” and to share its focus on “truth, goodness and beauty”. He takes over from Benedict XVI, who abdicated last month. The former Argentine cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 76, was the surprise choice of cardinals meeting in Rome to choose a new head of the Church.
Changing the subject from religious figureheads to Mr Blair is interesting from the perspective of how the English political parties have latterly approached the issue of religion. There is a doctrine that religion does not play a part in politics, and particularly not when going to war with a non-Christian country. Tony Blair is reported to have said he had intended to echo the traditional closing remark of Presidents in the United States, in one of his speeches. These presidents typically sign-off television broadcasts by saying, “God Bless America”. For much of his time in office, Mr Blair was accused of adopting a “presidential” style of leadership, and became close to former American presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush. His former director of communications, Alastair Campbell, once famously declared “we don’t do God”, when the then Prime Minister was asked about his beliefs.
Wind on a few years and you find the new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby warning that changes to the benefit system could drive children and families into poverty. He said society had a duty to support the “vulnerable and in need”. His comments backed an open letter from bishops criticising plans to limit rises in working-age benefits and some tax credits to 1% for three years. The Department for Work and Pensions said meanwhile stuck to their tried-and-tested line that changing the system will help get people “into work and out of poverty”. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that Archbishop Welby was “absolutely right” to speak out and described the proposals as “immoral”. So is this the beginning of a divide between the Church and parliament? Probably not a big enough divide who wish to see the disestablishment of the Church altogether.
Many recently would have been alerted by a tweet that used the hashtag ‘blacknoseday’. The sentiment behind it is in fact interesting. David Cameron, alleged to be the man responsible for cutting welfare benefits for the most needy in society, played a cameo role in a Comic Relief video. Nonetheless, Comic Relief made a record amount of money, it is reported. There is a further accusation that Cameron is encouraging us to donate to the charity by waiving VAT from sales of the song and covering this loss to the exchequer with money from the Overseas Budget. So now those people overseas who would have won direct government funding are relying on the UK population downloading a One Direction track.
And are Labour much better? Today, Dr Eoin Clarke’s peaceful rallies against the Bedroom Tax went very successfully, but against a background of discontent within Labour amongst activists. Shadow Cabinet member Helen Goodman MP, who served in the Department of Work and Pensions in the last Labour administration, said in a TV interview that that “We’ve said that the bedroom tax should only apply if people have been offered a smaller place to live and turned it down”. It appears that, time and time again, Labour have made half-hearted criticisms of welfare cuts, but Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Liam Byrne has already said that Labour will make further cuts to the welfare budget if Labour wins in 2015.
Furthermore, Labour will not yet commit to reversing specific changes contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, the shadow justice minister said this week. However, Andrew Slaughter MP promised a future Labour government would ‘rebalance the justice system’ in favour of those seeking civil redress. It would also make more savings from criminal legal aid. The challenge for a future Labour government will be to ‘rebalance the justice system so that it can be seen to give access to justice to all… irrespective of their means’. And in the near future Labour wishes to back Iain Duncan-Smith on some retroactive changes to the law over workfare also. The DWP has introduced emergency legislation to reverse the outcome of a court of appeal decision and “protect the national economy” from a £130m payout to jobseekers deemed to have been unlawfully punished. The retroactive legislation, published on Thursday evening and expected to be rushed through parliament on Tuesday, will effectively strike down a decision by three senior judges and deny benefit claimants an average payout of between £530 and £570 each. Apparently, Labour will support the fast-tracked bill with some further safeguards and that negotiations with the coalition are ongoing.
So is it right for Labour “not to do God”, nor even social justice? All of this appears to be screaming out for Labour to say to its membership, ‘Go back to your constituencies, and prepare once again for a hung parliament.’ Laurence Janta-Lipinski, a pollster from YouGov, has recently revealed his survey which has Labour on 43 percent, the Conservatives on 34 percent and the Lib Dems and Ukip both on 8 per cent – suggested a Labour majority. However, he said that unlike in 1995 and 1996, “Labour are not so far ahead in mid-term to be assured of victory”, and “anyone predicting an election at this time is on to a loser. This far out before an election, I wouldn’t feel comfortable predicting a Labour or Conservative government or a hung parliament because all three of them are still possible. There is a good chance of a hung parliament at the next election. Realistically, it is the best the Liberal Democrats can hope for. Vince Cable is probably right to prepare for a hung parliament.”
There is a real sense now of Labour making its own destiny, where bad luck meets lack of preparation. Having laid the groundwork for the privatisation of the NHS, it might be time for Labour to cut its losses, and to concentrate on its ‘core vote’, or even its ‘founding values’. And it can look this time for Margaret Thatcher ironically for inspiration.
Is it right for Labour "not to do God", nor even social justice?
Perhaps religion and politics don’t mix, but there is a certainly an appetite for moral and religious matters amongst some of the wider electorate at large. For ages, right wing critics have emphasised that the right wing “does” religion too, and the left does not have a monopoly on moral or religious issues. A fewer number on the left likewise feel that the right does not have a monopoly on business or enterprise, as they pursue, despite all the odds, the movement of “responsible capitalism”. In amidst all the turmoil of the implementation of the recommendations of the Leveson report, or furore about whether there was an ‘excess number of deaths’ at Mid Staffs (and if so, what to do about it), the Catholic Church elected a new Pope. Pope Francis has said that he wants “a poor Church, for the poor” following his election as head of the world’s 1.2bn Catholics on Wednesday. He said he chose the name Francis after 12-13th Century St Francis of Assisi, who represented “poverty and peace”. Spectators of UK politics will be mindful of the speech made by Margaret Thatcher on her election, for the first time, as Prime Minister outside Downing Street in 1979. Pope Francis urged journalists to get to know the Church with its “virtues and sins” and to share its focus on “truth, goodness and beauty”. He takes over from Benedict XVI, who abdicated last month. The former Argentine cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, 76, was the surprise choice of cardinals meeting in Rome to choose a new head of the Church.
Changing the subject from religious figureheads to Mr Blair is interesting from the perspective of how the English political parties have latterly approached the issue of religion. There is a doctrine that religion does not play a part in politics, and particularly not when going to war with a non-Christian country. Tony Blair is reported to have said he had intended to echo the traditional closing remark of Presidents in the United States, in one of his speeches. These presidents typically sign-off television broadcasts by saying, “God Bless America”. For much of his time in office, Mr Blair was accused of adopting a “presidential” style of leadership, and became close to former American presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush. His former director of communications, Alastair Campbell, once famously declared “we don’t do God”, when the then Prime Minister was asked about his beliefs.
Wind on a few years and you find the new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby warning that changes to the benefit system could drive children and families into poverty. He said society had a duty to support the “vulnerable and in need”. His comments backed an open letter from bishops criticising plans to limit rises in working-age benefits and some tax credits to 1% for three years. The Department for Work and Pensions said meanwhile stuck to their tried-and-tested line that changing the system will help get people “into work and out of poverty”. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that Archbishop Welby was “absolutely right” to speak out and described the proposals as “immoral”. So is this the beginning of a divide between the Church and parliament? Probably not a big enough divide who wish to see the disestablishment of the Church altogether.
Many recently would have been alerted by a tweet that used the hashtag ‘blacknoseday’. The sentiment behind it is in fact interesting. David Cameron, alleged to be the man responsible for cutting welfare benefits for the most needy in society, played a cameo role in a Comic Relief video. Nonetheless, Comic Relief made a record amount of money, it is reported. There is a further accusation that Cameron is encouraging us to donate to the charity by waiving VAT from sales of the song and covering this loss to the exchequer with money from the Overseas Budget. So now those people overseas who would have won direct government funding are relying on the UK population downloading a One Direction track.
And are Labour much better? Today, Dr Eoin Clarke’s peaceful rallies against the Bedroom Tax went very successfully, but against a background of discontent within Labour amongst activists. Shadow Cabinet member Helen Goodman MP, who served in the Department of Work and Pensions in the last Labour administration, said in a TV interview that that “We’ve said that the bedroom tax should only apply if people have been offered a smaller place to live and turned it down”. It appears that, time and time again, Labour have made half-hearted criticisms of welfare cuts, but Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Liam Byrne has already said that Labour will make further cuts to the welfare budget if Labour wins in 2015.
Furthermore, Labour will not yet commit to reversing specific changes contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, the shadow justice minister said this week. However, Andrew Slaughter MP promised a future Labour government would ‘rebalance the justice system’ in favour of those seeking civil redress. It would also make more savings from criminal legal aid. The challenge for a future Labour government will be to ‘rebalance the justice system so that it can be seen to give access to justice to all… irrespective of their means’. And in the near future Labour wishes to back Iain Duncan-Smith on some retroactive changes to the law over workfare also. The DWP has introduced emergency legislation to reverse the outcome of a court of appeal decision and “protect the national economy” from a £130m payout to jobseekers deemed to have been unlawfully punished. The retroactive legislation, published on Thursday evening and expected to be rushed through parliament on Tuesday, will effectively strike down a decision by three senior judges and deny benefit claimants an average payout of between £530 and £570 each. Apparently, Labour will support the fast-tracked bill with some further safeguards and that negotiations with the coalition are ongoing.
So is it right for Labour “not to do God”, nor even social justice? All of this appears to be screaming out for Labour to say to its membership, ‘Go back to your constituencies, and prepare once again for a hung parliament.’ Laurence Janta-Lipinski, a pollster from YouGov, has recently revealed his survey which has Labour on 43 percent, the Conservatives on 34 percent and the Lib Dems and Ukip both on 8 per cent – suggested a Labour majority. However, he said that unlike in 1995 and 1996, “Labour are not so far ahead in mid-term to be assured of victory”, and “anyone predicting an election at this time is on to a loser. This far out before an election, I wouldn’t feel comfortable predicting a Labour or Conservative government or a hung parliament because all three of them are still possible. There is a good chance of a hung parliament at the next election. Realistically, it is the best the Liberal Democrats can hope for. Vince Cable is probably right to prepare for a hung parliament.”
There is a real sense now of Labour making its own destiny, where bad luck meets lack of preparation. Having laid the groundwork for the privatisation of the NHS, it might be time for Labour to cut its losses, and to concentrate on its ‘core vote’, or even its ‘founding values’. And it can look this time for Margaret Thatcher ironically for inspiration.
It is impossible to half-believe in rehabilitation
Like those people who will tell others only half of the story, missing out the crucial bits, called a ‘half truth’ in contract law, I don’t think it’s possible to half-believe in rehabilitation. If I had a single penny everytime I had a penny somebody had said to me, ‘I believe in rehabilitation, but…’, I would be able to get over the fact my DLA was stopped without any warning or notice several months ago perhaps. Maybe it’s a marmite thing – you either love or hate it, but I fundamentally don’t believe you can believe in half-rehabilitation (or half-redemption), in that you cannot by definition be half-pregnant. When people are allowed a second-chance, they should be given just that, with a renewed presumption of innocence, and not suffer sophistry that denies double jeopardy.
Neuroscience and the law have recently hit the legal blogosphere and legal twittersphere, and a paper which has made a profound impact on me appeared in 2004 in the published Proceedings of the Royal Society. It’s a wonderfully concise article, with co-author Prof Josh Greene from Harvard, entitled, “For the neuroscience, law changes nothing and everything”. In this article, Josh addresses the balance, a pre-occupation of the law, between retribution and rehabilitation, and certainly in the UK, the court of public opinion is a factor. It’s well known, for example, that 99% of the public (Sun readers, rather) believe in the death penalty; should the legislature reflect entirely the views of its public, or should it mould or inform public opinion as appropriate? The public mood currently seems to be retributive, and one which may be influenced towards a drive towards austerity (why should we spend more on prisons?) This issue has reared its ugly head recently regarding our membership of the European Union, and indeed remaining a signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Josh’s abstract reads:
The rapidly growing field of cognitive neuroscience holds the promise of explaining the operations of the mind in terms of the physical operations of the brain. Some suggest that our emerging understanding of the physical causes of human (mis)behaviour will have a transformative effect on the law. Others argue that anew neuroscience will provide only new details and that existing legal doctrine can accommodate whatever new information neuroscience will provide. We argue that neuroscience will probably have a transformative effect on the law, despite the fact that existing legal doctrine can, in principle, accommodate whatever neuroscience will tell us. New neuroscience will change the law, not by undermining its current assump- tions, but by transforming people’s moral intuitions about free will and responsibility. This change in moral outlook will result not from the discovery of crucial new facts or clever new arguments, but from a new appreciation of old arguments, bolstered by vivid new illustrations provided by cognitive neuroscience. We foresee, and recommend, a shift away from punishment aimed at retribution in favour of a more progressive, consequentialist approach to the criminal law.
I went on Wednesday to a meeting of the Fabian Society at Westminster, which was a pamphet launch by Sadiq Khan MP, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, “Punishment and reform: how our justice system can help cut crime”.
You can view the pamphlet here.
The meeting has hosted at Mary Sumner House, 24 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3RB.
Sadiq writes in the Preface,
Our prisons are full of people who are illiterate and innumerate, who suffer from multiple mental health problems and drug addiction, who were in care a schildren and excluded from school. So I am under no illusions about the scale of the rehabilitation challenge. Dealing with the underlying issues many offenders face so they can get a job, reconnect with family and find a home upon release – all essentiaal to approach.
But what about the Sun sampling of the Court of Public Opinion? As Prof Julian Roberts says in the pamphlet, polls are only part of the picture, and the explanation for this in the pamphlet is convincing.
Mary Riddell chaired the meeting.
The Barrow-Cadbury Trust funded the pamphlet, and it has had a longstanding interest in social justice. The Barrow Cadbury Trust ((on Twitter here) is an independent, charitable foundation, committed to supporting vulnerable and marginalised people in society. The Trust provides grants to grassroots voluntary and community groups working in deprived communities in the UK, with a focus on Birmingham and the Black Country.
The issue has become critically important. Sadiq argued in an influential article in the Guardian in March 2011 that a tough penal policy fails on prevention of reoffending. There are two particularly noteworthy paragraphs in this article, and I apologise in advance for these being party-political points:
Labour made a mistake by “playing tough” on crime and allowing the prison population to soar to record levels during its time in government, instead of tackling sky-high reoffending rates, the shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, is to acknowledge for the first time on Monday.
and later
Labour should have done much better in reducing reoffending rates of those coming out of prison, he believes: “I feel it was a mistake to not focus more on the issue of reducing offending. We became hesitant in talking about rehabilitation and the merits of bringing down reoffending rates.
“A focus on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending was seen as being soft on crime, when in fact it is effective in reducing crime.”
Khan also warns that Ken Clarke’s “rehabilitation revolution”, which includes greater use of the voluntary sector and payment-by-results schemes, is seriously jeopardised by 25% cuts in the justice ministry’s budget. He argues that if Clarke’s plans fail then much of the progress in criminal justice over the past 13 years will be undone and the door left opened for the Tory right.
In March 2011, the BBC website reported the following:
The parents of a teenager who was stabbed to death are part of a group calling for all crime victims to be involved in the sentencing process.
Barry and Margaret Mizen, whose son, Jimmy, 16, died in 2008, are among 30 signatories to a letter in the Times.
Criminal justice reform proposals are currently being developed by ministers.
And the government is consulting about proposals to widen the use of restorative justice to cover low-level crime to cover low-level crime and anti-social behaviour.
Indeed, at our meeting on Wednesday, Barry Mizen explained that his views have changed over time. One of his priorities was to make sure it did not break up his marriage, but also hopefully that something good would come out of the devestating event which had happened. Barry felt that it was important for us all to have a grown up debate about the issue, but wished to see a mature attitude of society towards the situation of young people killing each other and their victims.
Mary Riddell asked Barry if he was informed about what to expect. Barry found the Police to be excellent, the lawyers for the Crown Prosecution Service were excellent, and the information came forward freely, and indeed Barry felt supportive. There were procedural issues about the release of the body however, according to Barry.
Prevention is better, from Barry’s point-of-view. Barry felt that you cannot as such force people into rehabilitation, as people have to decide individually as to whether to embrace rehabilitation. Educational opportunities are there, but Barry feels that nothing can be done unless the individual wishes to avail them. There is a perception that ever bigger sentences would act as a better deterrent. Barry feels that too many politicians are driven by the media which exert pressure – ‘talking tough’ is seen to solve the problem.
In austere times, how can you justify social justice? Despite their expense, according to Sadiq at Wednesday’s meeting, SureStart and the Youth Justice Board may have seen a reduction in crime rates, in custodial rates. Sadiq referred to this statistic (reported here).
The Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour has recently estimated that the relevant annual costs relating to youth crime and antisocial behaviour come to just over £4 billion. According to a recent report by the National Audit Office, offending by all young people in England and Wales is estimated to have cost the economy between £8.5 and £11 billion in 200912.
Joined up policy might mean that local authorities see the consequences of their own policy, according to Sadiq. This leads to the urge for Sadiq and colleagues asking for views from the public at large about reform of the criminal justice system, and Sadiq encouraged people to look at a new website www.justicereview.org.uk for justice reviews – Sadiq wants a justice system fit-for-purpose.
What chance is there of three parties working together? Consensus on justice would mean that a change in government would not mean a change in policy.
Can the offender be treated as the victim? Sadiq argued yes – the social issues before a person commits the first event, what happens in the prison system, and what happens if they leave, all need to be considered. Individuals’ responsibility should be considered, but also the context in which the crime takes place. Iain Duncan-Smith claims to understand the importance of prevention, according to Sadiq, but this is not carried through, for example in abolition of nursery clubs, youth clubs, overpopulated prisons and less prison officers.
Mary Riddell asked about people who have an indeterminate system. Judges should have freedom to set indeterminate sentences according to Sadiq Khan. If there are insufficient courses or programmes, cutting the number of programmes is not a solution., according to Saqid, In summary, judges should have at their disposal indeterminate sentences. Sadiq emphasised that ultimately judges are responsible for sentences, not individual MPs.
It was an excellent meeting. Mary, Barry and Sadiq were brilliant, and we all had ample opportunity to ask questions thanks to Mary.
