The economics of crime

There was a posh turd, dressed in a business suit, aged about 12, speaking like a 17th Century elocution tutor, on Question Time this week. He suggested that there is “no money left” because of Labour. This was in response to the whole question of rape sentencing that has plagued the British media like a bad theatre production all week.

Firstly, he is of course wrong.
For many many ignorant, typically Tory reasons.
The money to keep the prison population, was adequately provided for in the budget. A little spotty, sweaty Tory twat spouting “omg no money!!!! The Cameron man told me so!!!” doesn’t change that.

I don’t want to keep dragging up these comparative graphs to prove a point, but in this case, it is justified. The scare mongering again by those on the Right is becoming ingrained in our national psyche that it seems almost natural to talk of cuts as if they are absolutely necessary. People start their questions with “I understand there needs to be cuts, but…..”. The discourse is entirely provided for, by the Right wing. It needs to change.

This first chart, is how the Coalition would like us to always view the public debt. Just in terms of how much it is. It looks huge. It isn’t huge.

The reason it isn’t huge, is because the above graph doesn’t place the debt against how well the economy is doing at the time. If I have a debt of £200, and i’m only earning £220 a week, then yes, it looks huge. If i’m earning £3000 a week, then it’s not so bad.

This next graph is the debt against GDP.

Debt as a percentage of GDP, in the 20th Century, has been far far higher than it is now. It is simply ideological on the part of the right wing (which includes the Labour Party) to speak of this, as a great catastrophe and dire cuts needed immediately.

If there was no money left, it would surely be incredibly poor economic management to state on the Tory Party Website that their plan is: “Tough but fair – ensuring the richest shoulder the greatest burden“, whilst at the same time offering to….

cut Corporation Tax from 28 per cent to 24 per cent over four years which is the lowest rate in the G7.

So, that effectively means a company like Diageo PLC, who earned over £2bn in 2009, yet paid just £43mn in taxes now only have to pay 24%, instead of……………2%. So, whilst Diageo continue to tax avoid, whilst the employees who make the money for the company use the publicly funded roads, and have used publicly funded schools when they were young and publicly funded healthcare when they’re sick, to get them fit to get back to work and make Diageo even richer, other companies will fill that gap in public revenue,………. by paying less. So where does the money the little Tory shit want, come from?

Ken Clarke has an idea! Though he insists this policy isn’t about saving money, it’s about saving the dignity of the victim. Tories love the most vulnerable, as we’re all well aware.
The Justice Secretary is considering offering discounted sentences of 50% off, to rapists who plead guilty straight the way. His defence is, “Well, Labour set it at 1/3 off!!!”. A typical party political logical fallacy of the worst kind. His argument is it encourage rapists to admit their guilt early on, saving the victim the ordeal of going to trial. The reality is, it’s a cost cutting measure. Less prisoners in the system, less money being spent on prisons. This cost saving exercise goes hand in hand with the scheme to build more private prisons to house the prison population out of the hands of the State. It is already failing. According to a Freedom of Information request by More4, four out of ten private prisons scored incredibly low on the Prison Performance Assessment Tool. Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust said:

The evidence doesn’t suggest that it [use of private prisons] has driven up standards by providing good models.

- So, privatising doesn’t improve anything. Just like privatisation of the gas and electric companies didn’t improve competition, didn’t bring down prices, and actually caused greater problems especially among the poorer, older sections of society who now can’t afford to heat their homes at night.

Privatisation of prisons has a more sinister product. For the private prisons, crime is good. Crime pays. Crime means profit.

Public institutions are not worthless to the people who need it. There is no moral hazard in public institutions, to the people who live it. They act to meet the interests of the public, whose interests certainly aren’t being met by a neoliberal doctrine that is working to increase homelessness, destroy the planet, and impose its own interests on our democracies. The public sphere should be a sphere for debate on morality away from the ethics of the private sector, without it we are in danger of rationalising and justifying the unjustifiable simply because we believe the system is natural, unchangable, and those who are on the outside (be them criminals, the homeless, the mentally ill, or anyone who doesn’t fit into the neoliberal scope of reward) are to be locked away and ignored, because they are of no use to McJobs. By using the motive of profit, as the one defining ethical value within all of societies institutions, we lose what it is that makes us human, because we transfer all energy away from our empathy, our morality, and our compassion and onto our economic interests. That, is a problem.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of “Liberty” (human rights pressure group) and quite hypocritically, on the board of directors of London School of Economics when it accepted a donation from the Gaddafi family, said:

It costs £40,000 to put someone in prison. Is it so wrong to ask questions about whether that is the best way to rehabilitate someone?

- Yes. It is wrong. For two reasons. Firstly, because that is not what the Justice Secretary is proposing. If Shami Chakrabarti thinks letting a rapist out of jail 50% earlier than his sentence demands, just because he said “yeah, it was me”, is a good attempt at rehabilitating a rapist, she’s a disaster. Secondly, she started the sentence on the premise of cost. Cost is the first issue she considered, when uttering that sentence. If there is plenty of money to offer £6.1mn signing on fees to bankers at partly tax payer owned UK banks, and if we have enough money to bail out Ireland and back the bail out of Portugal, if we have enough money to replace trident and allow Vodaphone to get away with its £6bn tax bill, whilst shrinking their tax obligations from 28% to 24% and the cutting of the 50p top rate of tax, if we have enough money to spend on a pointless Royal Wedding and a war in Libya, then it is futile, ignorant, and actually immoral to start to discuss the criminal justice system in terms of cost to the tax payer.

Fighting crime is impossible when you are a government that is committed to increasing inequality. Like mass migration, the main cause of crime, is economic inequality. It is the old battle against poverty and against hunger. We cannot see the country through privileged middle class tinted sun glasses. Economic violence will always breed crime. University of Chicago’s Department of Sociology in the 1930s and 40s found that criminal activity on average, came from all races, all religions, from ordinary backgrounds who were deeply affected by changing economic conditions, and who were left behind.

Robert Reiner, in his book “Law and Order: An honest citizen’s guide to law and order” argues that developed nations such as America and Britain, saw a crime boom matching almost identically to the onset of Neoliberalism. Wage disparity across the board, increased inequality, a huge increase in low paid, insecure jobs, a new “me me me” society, ethics being replaced by ruthlessness, and harsh public spending cuts, actually increased crime beyond recognition. Those left behind, will almost always turn to crime.

People aren’t born criminals. Lower classes do not have criminal behaviour hard wired into their minds at birth. And given that the vase majority of crime, is crime of acquisition, by those from lower socio economic areas, one has to raise the quite simply observation, that economics is a problem. Of course, Libertarians refuse to accept that their system could possibly be the cause of such problems. Their perverse logic and ability to turn their heads to Occam’s razor, is enshrined in some of their most prolific writers. Libertarian writer Charles Murray claimed that there is an underclass who are pathologically and genetically criminal. It is therefore, the fault of biology, and conveniently absolves neoliberal economics of all the blame. He further suggested that Britain should refrain from offering child benefit to our lower classes, to take the incentive away to breed. Rather than face the reality that neoliberalism breeds material deprivation whilst encouraging an incessant and ruthless chase and brawl for material wealth, and so crime is inevitably going to increase in such an atmosphere, Murray and others like him prefer to turn the other way, and blame everything but their failure of a system.

The politics and economics of division, is responsible for the increase in crime rates. To divide people up, into categories based on income, based on race, or gender, and then to say “why aren’t you conforming? The man in the Rolls Royce is happy to conform, why aren’t you? Go to prison!” is deeply irresponsible, and quite prehistoric in its thinking. Transferring the good of community, with the disinterest in community and strength of the individually is a great moral hazard in itself.

It is rather a paradox that the school system aims only at producing good little workers, for the private sector to suck up. We teach our kids the same things, in the same rooms, with the same books, on the very limited same few subjects. We are creating a mass of people who think the same, and they inevitably rebel because they don’t think the same. We are trying to standardise the mindset of a generation, into believing that true happiness is acquired through the process of acquiring. It is unsuprising that those left behind, find other means to fill that gap that doesn’t actually exist, but has been instilled into their minds for decades.

The pro-neoliberal lobby have always refused to accept the criticism thrown at it. Those of us who dislike the model, must be communists. Yet the critiques are essential to understanding. Neoliberalism cannot explain, it can only enrich a select few. It brings with it deep divisions and inherent flaws that may seem like a droplet on an entire ocean, but can create a tsunami if they aren’t understood properly.

A well regulated Militia….

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America

When I read the second Amendment, I am drawn to the phrase “well regulated“. For me “…well regulated” in the second Amendment, suggests more than anything that The Founders are products of their time, and the right to own a gun, comes from the fear of that time. Fear of tyrannical government prominent during the tumultuous years of the American and French Revolutions. Mass slaughters in the Colonies, and news of slaughters at the Tuileries in Paris whilst trying to overthrow a tyrannical government, shaped the sentiment of fear prominent when this amendment was created. The right to own a gun, isn’t an inherent right, it is a right that can be placed entirely in context of the time. Made out of fear. It must be revised, for the context of today. The social and economic context today, of a land with 300,000,000 people, with an indescribably powerful defence sector; is not in anyway the same as the social and economic context of the time of Thomas Jefferson. It isn’t an America of small farming communities threatened by an overbearing British Empire. Jefferson, or Madison, or Hamilton, or any other Founder, could not have predicted where America might be today, with it’s gang culture, and its assault rifles, and how certain Amendments harking back 250 years, might be exploited.

As well as the Amendment being firmly rooted in 18th Century fear, the use of the word “militia” in the 2nd Amendment, must affect the word “people” in the 2nd amendment. For me, the word “militia” means that the word “people” becomes a collective body, and not the right of each individual to own firearms. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment speaks of a collective gun holding responsibility. Perhaps a place where guns are stored, kept safe until a well regulated Militia is needed to protect themselves as a collective. And so then you have to ask, when will America ever need a well regulated Militia on a State level, given the strength of their military?

Having a gun in your home, for “self defence” raises the risk of being murdered by someone you know, by 2.7 times. The suicide rate for those who keep guns raises by 4 times. These statistics

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” – The National Rifle Association

I’ve always shuddered at that NRA phrase. It’s a horrible argument designed to shut people up, because it’s superficially true in sentiment. Of course people kill people. Of course the gun doesn’t decide to kill all by itself. But it’s a tool used for the prime purpose of killing. A knife, is not designed specifically to kill. Neither is a car. A gun, when used correctly and responsibly, is used to kill. A gun, when used incorrectly, and irresponsibly, is used to kill. The design is purely to kill. To create an instrument designed purely to take life, and not have very strict controls, seems both absurd and dangerous. The latter, is proven time and time again.

According to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, you are five times more likely to die as a result of a gun attack, than you are as a result of a knife attack. Not only that, but according to the Department of Justice, one in every eight violent crimes, involved criminals carrying hand guns at the time.

The level of gun ownership – that is, arming everyone, to defend themselves, against…everyone – is directly related to the number of deaths by gun fire.

During the firearms amnesty in 2003, following the 1997 ban on handguns in the uk; 43,000 guns were handed in. That’s 43,000 less on the streets. That follows the amnesty directly after the two 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Acts, which resulted in 162,000 guns being handed in. Do I feel safer with almost 200,000 guns less on the streets? Absolutely. In the US most gun related deaths, are carried out by those who legally own the gun. That, is horrendous.

Now, the 2nd Amendment was written as a way to arm citizens against government tyranny. If we are to use the same argument today, we must be consistent. If the big bad Obama administration violently decides to invade Alabama…..a few citizens with semi automatics aren’t going to be much use in defending the State. They are going to need to be as armed as the Federal Government. I look forward to the NRA calling for the right of citizens to be armed with chemical and biological weapons, F16s and nukes. For the sake of consistency….. which I know, isn’t something the Right are famed for. ‘Arms’ in the 2nd Amendment refers to Nuclear weapons, just as much as it does to semi automatics, just as much as it does to 18th Century Muskets.

In 2008, there were over 12,000 gun related murders in the US. Comparatively, in 2006 in Japan…… total gun related murders…… 2. When guns have such harsh controls, that hardly anyone has one, the death by gun rate doesn’t rise (as the US neo-con’s appear to think it would)… it falls dramatically. Japans law is polar opposite to the 2nd Amendment in the US. In Japan, the law states:

“No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords.”

- As industrialised countries go, when it comes to gun control, Japan is doing it right.
In contrast, here are a list of mass killings as a result of an archaic obsession and misreading of the 2nd Amendment in the US, since Columbine, put together on Think Progress

December 11, 2012. On Tuesday, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed 2 people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon. His motive is unknown.
September 27, 2012. Five were shot to death by 36-year-old Andrew Engeldinger at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, MN. Three others were wounded. Engeldinger went on a rampage after losing his job, ultimately killing himself.
August 5, 2012. Six Sikh temple members were killed when 40-year-old US Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire in a gurdara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Four others were injured, and Page killed himself.
July 20, 2012. During the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, CO, 24-year-old James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58. Holmes was arrested outside the theater.
May 29, 2012. Ian Stawicki opened fire on Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, WA, killing 5 and himself after a citywide manhunt.
April 6, 2012. Jake England, 19, and Alvin Watts, 32, shot 5 black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in racially motivated shooting spree. Three died.
April 2, 2012. A former student, 43-year-old One L. Goh killed 7 people at Oikos University, a Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA. The shooting was the sixth-deadliest school massacre in the US and the deadliest attack on a school since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.
October 14, 2011. Eight people died in a shooting at Salon Meritage hair salon in Seal Beach, CA. The gunman, 41-year-old Scott Evans Dekraai, killed six women and two men dead, while just one woman survived. It was Orange County’s deadliest mass killing.
September 6, 2011. Eduardo Sencion, 32, entered an IHOP restaurant in Carson City, NV and shot 12 people. Five died, including three National Guard members.
January 8, 2011. Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head when 22-year-old Jared Loughner opened fire on an event she was holding at a Safeway market in Tucson, AZ. Six people died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll, one of Giffords’ staffers, and a 9-year-old girl. 19 total were shot. Loughner has been sentenced to seven life terms plus 140 years, without parole.
August 3, 2010. Omar S. Thornton, 34, gunned down Hartford Beer Distributor in Manchester, CT after getting caught stealing beer. Nine were killed, including Thornton, and two were injured.
November 5, 2009. Forty-three people were shot by Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan at the Fort Hood army base in Texas. Hasan reportedly yelled “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire, killing 13 and wounding 29 others.
April 3, 2009. Jiverly Wong, 41, opened fire at an immigration center in Binghamton, New York before committing suicide. He killed 13 people and wounded 4.
March 29, 2009. Eight people died in a shooting at the Pinelake Health and Rehab nursing home in Carthage, NC. The gunman, 45-year-old Robert Stewart, was targeting his estranged wife who worked at the home and survived. Stewart was sentenced to life in prison.
February 14, 2008. Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, killing 6 and wounding 21. The gunman shot and killed himself before police arrived. It was the fifth-deadliest university shooting in US history.
February 7, 2008. Six people died and two were injured in a shooting spree at the City Hall in Kirkwood, Missouri. The gunman, Charles Lee Thornton, opened fire during a public meeting after being denied construction contracts he believed he deserved. Thornton was killed by police.
December 5, 2007. A 19-year-old boy, Robert Hawkins, shot up a department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, NE. Hawkins killed 9 people and wounded 4 before killing himself. The semi-automatic rifle he used was stolen from his stepfather’s house.
April 16, 2007. Virginia Tech became the site of the deadliest school shooting in US history when a student, Seung-Hui Choi, gunned down 56 people. Thirty-two people died in the massacre.
February 12, 2007. In Salt Lake City’s Trolley Square Mall, 5 people were shot to death and 4 others were wounded by 18-year-old gunman Sulejman Talović. One of the victims was a 16-year-old boy.
October 2, 2006. An Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster, PA was gunned down by 32-year-old Charles Carl Roberts, Roberts separated the boys from the girls, binding and shooting the girls. 5 young girls died, while 6 were injured. Roberts committed suicide afterward.
March 25, 2006. Seven died and 2 were injured by 28-year-old Kyle Aaron Huff in a shooting spree through Capitol Hill in Seattle, WA. The massacre was the worst killing in Seattle since 1983.
March 21, 2005. Teenager Jeffrey Weise killed his grandfather and his grandfather’s girlfriend before opening fire on Red Lake Senior High School, killing 9 people on campus and injuring 5. Weise killed himself.
March 12, 2005. A Living Church of God meeting was gunned down by 44-year-old church member Terry Michael Ratzmann at a Sheraton hotel in Brookfield, WI. Ratzmann was thought to have had religious motivations, and killed himself after executing the pastor, the pastor’s 16-year-old son, and 7 others. Four were wounded.
July 8, 2003. Doug Williams, a Lockheed Martin employee, shot up his plant in Meridian, MI in a racially-motivated rampage. He shot 14 people, most of them African American, and killed 7.
September 15, 1999. Larry Gene Ashbrook opened fire on a Christian rock concert and teen prayer rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX. He killed 7 people and wounded 7 others, almost all teenagers. Ashbrook committed suicide.
July 29, 1999. Mark Orrin Barton, 44, murdered his wife and two children with a hammer before shooting up two Atlanta day trading firms. Barton, a day trader, was believed to be motivated by huge monetary losses. He killed 12 including his family and injured 13 before killing himself.
April 20, 1999. In the deadliest high school shooting in US history, teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold shot up Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. They killed 13 people and wounded 21 others. They killed themselves after the massacre.

- How many more need to be added?

According to Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International, The gun deaths per 100,000 of the population of the United States, in a 2001 study, was 3.98. In comparison, Italy, Switzerland, Canada, Finland, Australia, France, England, Wales, Scotland, and Japan combined came up to less than the USA. Why? Why is this the case? Well, a weak interpretation of the Constitution is of course one reason, perhaps add to that an underfunded mental health sector, along with a for-profit healthcare system in general, we also know that economic inequality plays a large part in violence. This graph shows homicides per million, in relation to economic inequality. Just look at the US.

Only a change in attitudes can put this right. The Right Wing of America has to acknowledge the sheer hypocrisy in the voices shouting pro-life sentiments whilst advocating the joys of one of the biggest killers in the Country. Countries with strict gun control laws, and a more equal income distribution have fewer deaths. Liberals must be far more willing to fight the cause, and to educate people on the dangers of weak gun control, because shouting “we need gun control” on its own, doesn’t work. There needs to be informative campaigns against gun ownership, tougher sentences for those convicted of gun crime, make guns less accessible, reduce the supply of guns, and most of all, there needs to be a real careful look at whether the context of the Constitution – with its fear of a Red Coat invasion – might not quite be interpretable the same way today. Use common sense. The NRA’s slogan is nonsense. However, so is the naive liberal notion that immediately outlawing gun ownership, will solve a Nation’s gun crime problems. All it would do, is promote the growth of a new black market, and then you have a whole new problem on your hands.

The Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment was ambiguous because it had no idea what the future might hold. It cannot be claimed that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry an assault rifle. The 2nd Amendment does not give the right to all Americans to keep a gun in their homes, but similarly, it does not say that Americans must not keep a gun in their homes. The framers left it up to the Democracy of the future to come to their own conclusions. This, is the genius of the American Constitution, but also it’s failing.

Gun ownership is no longer about protecting the Nation against a tyrannical government – the very reason it was included in the first place – It is now about protecting each other, against each other, because one of the two parties might shoot first. That is the legacy of lax gun regulation. One big social cold war, against each other.

Edit. 14/12/2012:

Today, in Newtown Connecticut, a man has shot and killed at least 18 small children. It is a tragedy beyond any human comprehension. My heart goes out to the families of the victims this evening. I cannot begin to fathom the unimaginable grief that they must be feeling. It is horrendous.

There has been a lot of talk that today isn’t the day to be politicising gun control. I disagree. Today is absolutely the right day to be politicising gun control, as a matter of urgency. It is also the right day to be discussing the failings of the mental health system. In a week’s time, everyone will be talking about the ‘fiscal cliff’ again, and suddenly the passion for progress withers away. Days like today are preventable. Do not let anyone tell you that a killer will go into a school and kill children whether he has a gun or not. That simply isn’t true. “Politicising” sounds like a terrible word, but it is, in reality, the people looking at a situation, and asking how to stop it happening again.

Yesterday, in Michigan, lawmakers passed a law that allows people who have undergone eight hours more training, to carry concealed guns into a school, day care centre, bar, or sports event. I am horrified by this. The arguments for this disgusting little law, is that maybe if teachers are armed, the killer might be stopped early. What happens if the killer is a teacher? And in a bar? Mixing guns and alcohol? Really? What if the teacher, in the panic of a killer on school property, shoots, and misses, and hits someone else? The moment one person dies as a result of the passing of this law; the Republican legislators of Michigan who voted for it, have blood on their hands.

I just don’t see why anyone would take the chance, in allowing a weapon designed solely to kill, to be concealed and carried in a school. It is truly horrifying.

The Labour Leadership

When President Sarkozy of France indicated that the VAT cut over here in Britain, had not worked, Downing Street released the statement…

“It is important to remember the context in which he was making the comments, which as I understand it, was a domestic debate on television about the way forward for the French economy and French proposals for an economic stimulus.”

I think they missed the point. They always appear to miss the point. I’m not quite sure that the context matters at all. If Sarkozy had said “The VAT cut didn’t work” during a domestic debate about the French economy, or if he’d have said “The VAT cut didn’t work” during a sensual bath with Gordon Brown himself, it means the same thing. Not only that, but he’s right. The VAT cut didn’t work. It didn’t go far enough. Especially given that most retailers had cut prices distinctively more than ever before anyway.

The German Chancellor has accused Britain and America of failing to understand and control under-regulated areas of the economy, which in turn has lead to this whole disaster. Like Sarkosy, the German Chancellor is right. It doesn’t matter how many times Brown refuses to acknowledge his role in this crises, nor does it matter how many times he says “It’s a global problem“, the recent poll numbers, putting the Tories at a 20 point lead suggest that the public just doesn’t buy into what he says.

So why then, is it being suggested that Brown may step down as Prime Minister, to head up a Global Financial Regulator body? Although he’s denied his interest in such an appointment, it must be tempting for him. He has endured 10 years as Britain’s Chancellor before taking over from Blair as Prime Minister in 1997. But that begs the question, if Brown has been in charge of the Economy for the ten years leading up to the biggest economic disaster in generations, in which a lot of blame can be placed directly at the door of the new Prime Minister, why does anyone think, of the billions of people that live on our wonderful planet, that he, above all others, is the right man for the job? Surely along with people like Alan Greenspan and George Bush, he’d be kept well away from any kind of financial responsibility? We do not need failed Brownomics. We do not need failed Thatcherite economic policies. We need something new; something that preaches social morality within the confines of the free market model.

Labour After Brown.

I do not ever want to see a Conservative Government in this Country again. The roots of the economic crises today, can be traced in an almost perfect line back to the years in which Thatcher beat it into an entire generation, that the free market could solve everything. It didn’t work, clearly.

However, the Tories will win the next general election. That’s now a given. And they wont win by a small majority either, they will command a significant majority. So the worry is, who is to lead the Labour Party if Gordon Brown were to step down to take on a Global Regulatory role, or when Labour lose the next general election?

The talk of Journalist town appears to suggest that Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman is gearing up for a leadership bid. Does Labour really lack the talent? This is a woman who once said “Yep “ when asked if Labour should apologise for the false intelligence of the Iraq war, and then a few nights later claimed she’d never said that and demanded evidence.
The same Harriet Harman who once said that she would happily go out at night in her town of Peckham and not fear for her safety, but then went out in a stab proof vest.
The same Harriet Harman, who quite disgustingly, tried to nullify the high court ruling that all MPs receipts should be published, by trying to exempt MPs from the Freedom of Information act.
I would rather not vote at all, than be given a choice between Harriet Harman and David Cameron.

She certainly appears to be stepping up her profile recently, agreeing to speak at a ‘Womens Conference’ at the exact same time as the G20 meetings take place. She also started pushing for bank bonus caps recently, having kept relatively quiet for months. Is she trying to win over the support of the Labour left? According to politicalbetting.com, Harman is doing what Labour leaders do prior to an election and sucking up to the Unions. Politicalbetting asks if Harman is becoming our version of Palin…. I can safely say, yes she is, because she’s ridiculous, and useless all at the same time.

Harman certainly seems to be positioning herself one step above the competition, which would include David Miliband (my favourite as successor to Brown) and Alan Johnson, who really aren’t making any effort or publicity. In 2008, Miliband wrote an article in the Guardian about his vision for the future of the Labour Party. He doesn’t mention Gordon Brown’s involvement in that future once. He also suggests here… “The odds are against us, no question. But I still believe we can win the next election.”… That Labour has issues and must over come those odds. That issue, at that time, was Gordon Brown. Miliband looked set to offer an alternative to Brown. He ended up backing down. Perhaps that’s a weakness that should not be brought to the Prime Minister’s chair. He does however, attack the Tories, and David Cameron in particular. That isn’t what a Foreign Secretary does. It is however, what a man with big ambitions does. So perhaps the subtle hint at an ambitious future, was enough to start the ball rolling in 2008. He seems however, to have stayed quiet so far this time around, allowing Harman to get the publicity over a possible leadership contest.

For the sake of the Labour Party, let’s inject new blood into the system. Harman is not leadership material. She’s a typical Politician who cannot answer questions straight, and repeatedly contradicts herself, whether it be on her comments over a much needed apology for flawed intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, or preaching how wonderfully safe the streets of London are, whilst herself strolling around in a stab proof vest; just stands to show she is in fact a disaster of a Leader-in-waiting.

The public do not like Harman. She has made too many PR mistakes to claw back any ounce of respect. And whilst I’d push for The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband as next Labour leader simply because he reflects my own Blairite tendencies whilst looking young and fresh enough to pose an adequate threat to Cameron’s Tories; why should we leave it to the Party itself to decide? Why can’t we have a real democratically elected leader through perhaps a Primary system as in America?

Because if Harman is given the top job, she doesn’t stand a chance against the fresh looking, but lacking fresh ideas; Cameron’s Tories.

Vote Jamie!!

I plan to put my name forward for President of the World. So thought it wise to provide you with reasons to vote for me.

Immigration: Should have a cap, i’d agree with that. The cap must be flexible and take into account, the cost of banning someone from the Country. Immigrants who are in this country, should be given full rights. If an immigrant is better at a job than a British born citizen, then the immigrant should get the job.
There should be absolutely no form of discrimination of the grounds of race, sexuality or religion. Why should an English company be allowed to exploit the World so you can afford cheap clothes, but those who are exploited, not be allowed to seek a better life for themselves and their families here?
Anyone seeking asylum for fear of their life, should be given asylum. We’re a liberal, caring country, it should stay that way.
I do not believe in a “British way of life” so the rapid cultural changes that occur, that have always occured, i’m very much in favour of.
The danger of capping immigration, is capping the number of perfectly able entrepreneurs setting up shop and creating jobs here in England, which we need!
And far from “stealing all our jobs!” they create jobs. More people means more production needed for the rising demand of goods, which means more jobs required to create those products. A sensible government realises this.
Immigrants also contribute to the pension fund of an ageing population, who could not be fully supported without immigrants.

Nationalism : Although Jamie-Land would remain a democracy, a Liberal education and a Liberal government hopefully would put an end to all the morons who spew “I’m proud to be English!!!” – as if it’s an achievement, as if they had a choice. Imbecilic idiots who bang on about how they see the British way of life being eroded, and yet can’t name a famous English artist, or when the Protestant revolution took place, or a great English war general, or an English poet. Fuck off with your hypocritical uneducated intolerant bollocks.
And although we wont ban parties who prey on those who do not understand Politics or Economics, or human compassion, like The BNP, we will work our hardest to undermine them and prove them very very wrong.
We will work for Humanitarianism, rather than Nationalism. It offends me, that groups like the BNP want to stick up for the colour of my skin, as if I care about the Colour of my skin. It’s an embarrassment that BNP leaders like Collett, are claiming to protect my interests. I don’t want little Nazi thug idiots protecting me.

Abortion: Should remain Legal on the basis that two doctors agree that it’s the right thing to do. Religion should not influence the decision of anyone. I fully support a woman’s right to choose. Up to 16 weeks.

NHS: Our National Treasure. Should be well funded, free from private investment, because that’s one step closer to a fully privatised healthcare system, which just cannot happen. The NHS should remain a strong British institution.
Cut wasteful paperwork and bureaucratic nonsense that strangles the NHS.
More NHS GP Practices in the most run down of areas. In the hope of cutting waiting lists.
100 more Walk in centres, by 2012.

Homosexuality: This is simple for me, homosexual couples should have exactly the same rights as hetrosexual couples. There is absolutely no reason for them not to have. Homosexuality shouldn’t even be a topic of debate in this age. If God still refers to Homosexuals as an abomination, then God isn’t allowed in my country.

Religion: Everyone should have the right to believe whatever they choose without anyone causing trouble because of it. A muslim should not be made to feel like a Terrorist by self righteous British Christians. A muslim woman should not be looked down upon for wearing full muslim attire, when a Nun can quite happily wear full Christian attire and have no negative comments thrown at her. Full integration. If anyone is caught inciting racial hatred, their locked up in my country. My aim would be to stop those horribly British Nationalists petitioning Whitehall the moment a new Mosque goes up in their town.
Religion though, will in no way affect policy making or law.

Education: State Education should be the place where the highest amount of tax payers money is spent. Schools should be fighting each other for the best teachers, who should be on massive wages. My government would not sit back and do nothing, we’d pump a lot of money into the system, to improve education.
I’d put an end to Faith schools. They teach segregation. I’d introduce “Culture” classes, that promote understanding and tolerance, in which mixed race classes teach each other, learn together, and involve themselves in team work together.
We’d create a class dedicated to helping children discover themselves as people, rather than a money making machine. Dedicated to Peace studies, humanitarian studies, and charitable studies.
Homosexuality taught as acceptable and not as taboo.
Evolution taught alongside Creationism, both as theories.
EMA is a great Labour achievement, and i’d carry it on.
Extra help for those who aren’t achieving standards that they are deemed to be able to achieve.
Compulsory councilling for those kids who misbehave constantly, to try to understand their problems instead of just chucking them out of school.
The idea will be to, along side an academic education, join people together, and let kids know it doesn’t matter if you’re artistic or academic, musical or mathematical, male or female, gay or straight, black or white, from single parent families or mother and father families or brought up by gay parents. A full Liberal, accepting, tolerant education.

Economy: Mixed. Keynesian. A lot of people are suggesting that Keynes theory is outdated, that it didn’t work the first time around. The first time Keynes theory was exercised, 50 odd years ago, we were in the middle of an economic boom. We’re now in Economic bust, so it’s a completely different set of circumstances.
In Jamie Land, Banks would be under heavy regulation, any smell of wrongdoing, and they’re out. The bankers would be unable to receive huge bonus packages if they haven’t performed as well as expected, and the sub prime market would have to undergo incredibly fine tooth combing before being accepted again.
A higher rate of inheritance tax introduced for the top earners. If you manipulate the free market you can’t then have your own brand of inter-family socialism.
I’d create a new department dedicated to weeding out corporate wrongdoing. Any tax loopholes found to be costing the system a fair bit of money, will be closed.
There must be a safety net for those less fortunate, there must be a sympathetic shoulder of Government that exists, compassion cannot be allowed to simply die. And so the Welfare state should provide for those less fortunate, but also must be regulated tightly.
Child benefit will be increased to £1200 a year, paid for by a 3%
increase in income taxes on the top earners; those earning more than £250,000 a year.
Those on low and middle incomes, will see their taxes dropped by 2%, in order to keep money in the pockets of those who need it most.
I fully support Labour’s new Savings Gateway Scheme.
Nationalise necessities such as gas and water. People should not be in fuel poverty whilst the head of British Gas rolls in a mountain of profit. We’re back to the compassionate side of Britain again. It’s not fair that although oil prices have dropped 29% since August 2008, the big Utility companies are not passing those decreases onto customers, and so are raking in a fortune.
Higher investment in Green Energy alternatives. In the hope of weening us off foreign energy.
Minimum Wage highered to £7 an hour from £5.73.
If we can afford to give billions of pounds to bail out greedy bankers, we can afford to invest extra money in helping small businesses through personal advisors, interest free loans, and grants.
National Insurance, for small firms will be cut by 2%.
Higher tax rate on cigarettes and alcohol.

Housing: There are estimated to be 750,000 vacant properties that Landlords are failing to rent out in Britain. The Jamie Government would invest in 1,000,000 new homes by 2012, in the hope of stabilising the housing market, which seems to be an ever increasing problem for first time buyers. We’d invest in many many more council houses, which would not come with the “right to buy” capability, but remain as council houses. All of which, would be far “greener” than the current stock.
We must be strong in our conviction on where we place housing. We cannot keep throwing up tower blocks of flats, we need to commit to new villages, new green towns.
Repossession is a final resort policy, after everything else possible has been exhausted, including financial advice from the bank.
There will be brand new Social housing for the homeless. They will be looked after, fed, and kept safe, they will have councelling to deal with any unresolved problems they may have, but all on the basis that they agree to be helped back into work when their program of rehabilitation is complete. Whilst undergoing this rehabilitation, they will be involved in Social projects. People should not be allowed to be treated like animals on the street.

Crime: Again, like education, I want to know what drives people to become criminals. There must be a catalyst. As well as much harsher prison sentences for the violent conduct of thugs, drug dealing, murder, rape, child abuse, theft, and other such crimes, they’d be made to undergo weekly psychiatric evaluations to attempt to understand the causes of such crimes.
Crimes such as possession of Cannabis will warrant a three strikes policy. First time you’re caught, a verbal warning, second time; a written warning, and finally, a two month prison sentence. However, the police will be advised not to focus much attention on people just having a bit of social fun, or trying to catch people speeding, and focus more attention on street gangs and thugs.
A ten year focused plan to put armed police units in the most violent areas of the country. Any one carrying a knife, will face a minimum two year jail sentence and rehabilitation.

Europe: Until Europe comes up with a well made Constitution, equal in quality to that of the United States of America, then we must stay at arms length, but we must also press the E.U for much tougher line on climate change, social welfare, and lowering economic tariffs. But until the Constitution and timing is perfect, we just cannot fully commit to the E.U.
Unlike the U.S, Europe should not have a centralised governing body, but a group of States who work together.

Transport: When it costs £40 for a crowded train journey from the midlands, to London, something is wrong. I propose a nationalised train service, to compete along side the privatised train services, in an attempt to bring prices down. If you’re going to tax drivers more and more in the hope that they’ll use public transport, then public transport needs to be better funded, cheaper, and more frequent services.
OAPs still travel free at peak times on buses.
Bus prices, to be regulated by local government.
Subsidised school buses.
And finally, a national tram system, similar to the one currently running successfully in Nottingham, like an overground Tube system, in every major city in the UK. If we really want people to get out of their cars and take public transport, let’s give an incentive to do it. Very costly, but ultimately worth it. Progression is the only way, regardless of the opposition it initially faces.

So that’s pretty much it.
VOTE JAMIE!