Justice - for whom?

All political parties must embrace a justice system but there are no absolutes in justice. Despite what those in power may claim, there are options as to how justice can be defined and achieved. These options must be based on the values of the Party. A government which values wealth above all else has focused on reducing the amount of money allowed to the poorest, as if this money were stolen from others. The justice system is increasingly used to the disadvantage of the weakest in society, unprotected increasingly by legal aid. Trust in policing has become frayed by decades of practices revealed as corrupt or prejudiced. Prosecutions are common for petty crime while those responsible for the loss to society of billions are seen to be immune. Trust needs to be restored in the institutions for justice to be done and perceived to be done for all.

As demonstrated by "The Spirit Level", trust [as well as health] is lower in countries with higher income difference, which has gone out of control in UK. An alternative government which prioritises social justice is more likely to create a culture of mutual trust. Can a society in these days be less unequal? The gulf between richest and poorest is almost half in the Nordic countries that in USA and UK.

Labour must return to power, with an agenda to restore justice for all: detection and prosecution focused on the crimes which most damage the country, tax fraud, digital theft, financial malfeasance, people trafficking, unfair rents and employment practices, on a national or international level; but at a local level, crime prevention through local knowledge and a presence in communities, with mediation, community resolution and restorative justice as tools to keep costs down and reduce prosecution and imprisonment for those least equipped to function in society. Labour can be the ground-breaking Party which decriminalises drug-taking, to expose and squeeze out the illegal dealers and introducing controls to make safe what people buy and consume.

By targeting the right resources at what most damages society, justice can still be achieved affordably, without removing from those most in need of it the vital resource of legal aid from properly remunerated lawyers. This is everyday justice affecting employment, housing, clinical negligence, and unfair arrest, protecting people instead of criminalising them.

Grayling is failing; Sadiq can succeed.

Tom Serpell