Unnatural justice

One of the defining characteristics of Great Britain has always been a natural affinity with justice and fair play.Not the sort of justice that we associate with the bewigged denizens of Planet Zog who populate the upper levels of our judiciary. That is designed primarily to shield their upper class mates from the prying eyes and cameras of the popular Press.
You won't find the sort of justice I have in mind entombed in a law book so densely worded that you have to employ a specialist in arcane language - a lawyer to you and me - to interpret it. Generally, it comes through in the actions of ordinary people who have an instinctive appreciation of what is right and wrong.
Three recent stories highlight the disconnect between the great mass of people,our political and judicial elites and the concept of Natural Justice.
The first is the so-called revelation that Labour has deliberately pursued an open-door immigration policy not - as they kept reassuring a sceptical population - for the economic benefit of the country but for the much more narrow purpose of changing the cultural complexion of Great Britain while, coincidentally broadening their client and voter base.  Where have our so-called political journalsists and commentators been for the last ten years?
As I wrote as long ago as November 2007:
"There are certain areas of Great Britain that have always voted Labour and will always go on voting Labour - whether the old or the New variety - because every wave of economic success passes them by. Equally, there are bastions of Tory support which catch all the waves for the simple reason that they create them in the first place. Noo Labour knows this. No matter how pathetic they may be as administrators, the Blairs, Mandelsons and Browns of this world understand politics. Equally, they know that the more prosperous people become, the more conservative ( with a small c) they tend to become in their habits. Owning a property in common with a bank has a way of concentrating the mind and stimulating an interest in economics that may have, hitherto, lain hidden. Consequently, with the British economy enjoying the longest sustained growth in living memory, more and more people have climbed onto the property ladder and, thus, have also taken the first, tentative steps towards small c conservatism. In fact, all that has limited the numbers jumping aboard the property bandwagon has been the astronomical inflation of house prices. ( One of the Laws of Unintended Consequences that we can discuss at a later date).

So, here's a conundrum. We ( Noo Labour) naturally want the country to be prosperous because it enhances our prospects for re-election. On the other hand, the better off the country becomes, the further away from our core values the electorate moves. This is particularly true in the engine room of the economy, in the South East where home ownership is at its highest; as is, surprise surprise, the level of support for the wretched Tory party. Even more worrying is the fact that the benefits of the economic miracle are also being enjoyed in our traditional working class heartlands where the same shift towards middle class values is clearly discernible. There are only so many times we can move to the right to maintain our appeal to "Middle England" before we alienate the Unions and there are only so many new government jobs we can create. So, where else can we look for the voting fodder we need to win the next election and keep ourselves in a manner to which we have become rapidly accustomed? The answer, my friends, lies some where else in a place known as Abroad.
Let us welcome the huddled masses, yearning to be free that the US, Australia, Canada, South Africa and most of the developed world - and virtually the whole of Europe, apart from Sweden - don't wany darkening their doorsteps. Let's remove all border controls and issue entry visas as if they were library tickets. If people swarm in illegally, let's pretend that we hadn't noticed even if, by doing so, we encourage slave labour in the form of Chinese cockle pickers or Romanian child prostitutes. We'll claim to be building a truly multi-cultural society. If people complain, we'll brand them racist. If they say we are destroying British culture, we'll label them Little Englanders. And, if they persist with their protests, we'll introduce a raft of new laws that make it illegal for them to do so. We'll deny, cavill, argue and prevaricate while, all the while, encouraging the largest continuous migration in British history. Because, while the rest of the country looks on the newcomers as immigrants, foreigners and threats to their jobs we see them in a totally different light. To us, this multi-coloured rainbow of cultures and religions represents the future. Our future, handed to us on an electoral plate by hordes of grateful Poles, Somalis, Albanians and Slovaks so different in their origins but united by one pure and beautiful emotion; undying gratitude to the party that gave them the keys to the Kingdom."
This week, we also  learnt that all three main parties are considering some sort of charge or levy on old people to help fund them if they have to end their days in a care home of some sort In the case of Labour, we are apparently looking at a post-mortem tax of £20,000 on individual estates. While the Tories have cavilled at this figure, they are, themselves, suggesting a voluntary contribution of around £8000 for a post-retirement insurance scheme to fund old age care. As` usual,the LibDems don't seem to have formulated a policy so far.
Whichever way you slice it, all of these elite politicians seem to feel that it is perfectly in order for someone to work and pay taxes for thirty to forty years and then, at the very moment when they should be enjoying the fruits of honesty, hard work and civic responsibility, for the government to insert a large mitt into their back pocket and extract a substantial sum of money. There are two problems with this policy of course and the biggest is that it flies in the face of any idea of natural justice. The only people to whom it can apply are, by definition, those who have managed to work regularly,save for and buy their own home over the course of their lifetime. People who have been feckless,lazy, unambitious or simply uninterested in owning a property will, obviously, be unable to participate in this scheme. But, since we all have Human Rights, it is a fair bet that they will still be eligible for the same levels of care and consideration irrespective of any lack of tangible assets. So,they will escape the legalised larceny of the Government while enjoying exactly the same benefits as those robbed at the cashpoint.
Is this fair? NO. Is it in any sense just? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Is there a politician who will articulate the basic injustice being proposed? Not one enjoying any sort of influence in the three main parties.

Which brings us to the final hackle-raising story of the week.
While our politicians are debating not whether to rob the old of part of their life savings but precisely how much to steal, they apparently have no difficulty finding the funds to house, feed and clothe someone whose apparent entitlement to help and assistance would, at first blush, appear to eb tenuous at best.
For while we cannot, as a nation, find it in our collective heart to make the last days of our old folk warm, comfortable and secure without their coughing up a substantial chunk of change, we do not have the same problems when it comes to funding a millionaire lifestyle for a single mother with six children.
Esma Marjam hails from the Midlands where her ex-husband is a solicitor or some similar bastion of middle class respectability. Despite this fact, she and her six children have all ended up living in council accommodation in London. Not in Tower Hamlets. Not in Brixton. Not even in Peckham, Kilburn, Brent,  Lewisham,Ealing or Islington. No, the Marjam family, for some reason that isn't made clear, has elected to make the area administered by the City of Westminster its base. Until recently, they managed to scrape by in an ordinary 3 bedroomed council house. For some reason, which again is not made really clear, Ms Marjam decided that this was inadequate for her growing brood. When Westminster Council dragged its feet in finding the right sort of accommodation, she decided to go online and find something suitable herself.
What she came up with was a seven bed mansion not a boundary throw from Lords Cricket Ground in St. John's Wood. And what a snip,it has turned out to be. All Westminster Council - or to be more precise the unwitting Council Tax payers of that Borough - has to find to put a roof over the Marjam family's heads is £7000 per month, or £84000 per annum.
But, of course, there's more to life than mere accommodation so the family also has to take an additional £1500 of taxpayers' money every month to scrape by. Taken all in, the Great British public is paying this woman and her brood the equivalent of a pre-tax salary of about £150,000 per year. In the meantime, the same politico-judicial elite is debating whether to force people who have paid taxes and National Insurance all their lives to pay a further £8000 to £20,000 for the privilege of being allowed to grow old gracefully.
Little wonder that people are starting to look around fro alternatives to the three main parties if this is their idea of natural justice.