Prisons Policy: It's about what you can prove

The debate over the future of our prisons policy, kicked off today by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, has certainly got a lot of political feathers ruffled.

The one thing which interests me is this; the arguement against using prison is the large number of people who (often quickly) re-offend. The arguement for using prisons is that it acts as a deterent to people.

Only one of those you can prove.

To calculate the re-offending rate is very easy indeed.

But to calculate the number of people put off committing crime because of the fear of prison is almost beyond calculation (because you can, by virtue of the crime not happening, ever know this.)

So the pro-rehabilitation lobby have stolen a march on the pro-prison lobby by having a definitive arguement and an easy statistic to throw around.

To my knowledge, as of yet, nobody has suggested a public debate over which kinds of crime, done by which sorts of people, done how many times should lead to certain punishments or prison sentences. Why not?

A Funny Way To "Lose" at PMQs

In the past few weeks there have been concerns, touted in the press and on the blogosphere, that Brown was finally getting one over on Cameron at PMQs; but some Tories batted this off saying that this was part of Dave's great plan to be soft on Gordon and help cement his position; after all, Brown is the secret to a Conservative landslide at the next election.

However today was a classic example of where Cameron wasn't interested in the win-lose-draw aspect. He had a fantastic issue - a news story in itself. A handwritten letter from Labour's Chief Whip Geoff Hoon to Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee Chairman Keith Vaz saying that he hoped that Mr Vaz would get an appropriate reward for doing a policy U-turn and backing the government in the crucial 42 days vote.

Cameron went rather softly on it; and the media and bloggers picked up on this and said he let Brown off lightly. I don't think so.

Cameron was putting an issue into the public domain - he got the good soundbite out (tell the truth, don't take us for fools etc) and has really been at the forefront of yet more good Tory publicity.

If he has wanted to bash the PMs head in, he could have taken all 6 questions on this issue and massacred him. Cameron chose not to, because he had done his job. Rather like Blair when his sprung the Cranbourne deal on Hague back in the 90s.

So for once, PMQs isn't about winning - it's about a narrative to an excellent media story. The Hoon-Vaz issue will never be sorted (because we'll just never know what that ! meant) but that won't stop this government taking yet another kick in the balls - because if just confirms that view most people had already about this shabby 42 days vote.

Note to the BBC

When I blogged that people would flock to the Davis banner of freedom, it was against the backdrop of 69% support for 42 days, a victorious Labour Party emerging from a parliamentary win and a media convinced that DD was bonkers.

Now, a few days later the commentators are changing their minds, the polls (especially within Davis' own constituency) are showing public backing for the resignation and even the Murdoch empire is backing off.

Note to BBC et al; check with the public before deciding what you think they think.

Why the Sun Won't Win It

I am glad that Kelvin McKenzie is ready to be the standard bearer for 42 days, especially as Gordon Brown's Labour Party is too gutless to do just that. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Kelvin won't make the ballot paper; why? Well, for a start we know that Rupert Murdoch is personally financing the campaign (Kelvin said so on national TV yesterday) and that the Murdoch press will swing behind him.

However the beauty of particularly "The Sun" is its claim to be the voice of the nation; our best read newspaper. There is no way on earth "The Sun" would back a candidate who stood a chance of losing. "The Sun" is always right, it always backs the winner and Murdoch won't take chances.

They'll be doing their research tonight, no doubt polls and focus groups too. And if the voters of David Davis' former constituency look like backing DD over Kelvin, they'll steer well clear.

Davis is still putting this issue firmly first and centre on the agenda; I even had a call from our local media today about my views on this. The more Davis speaks the more people will realise that our British way of life is being erroded.

If it thinks there is even a chance it may lose, "The Sun" won't take on H&H and it won't take on Davis.

UPDATE; a colleague of mine at work things this looks a lot like the Purple Party stunt from the awful BBC series "The Amazing Mrs Pritchard". I bloody well hope not!

Probably the most remarkable politican of the last decade

The resignation of Tory Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, not just from his frontbench job but as an MP, is a remarkable piece of political drama. Quitting to force a by-election on the 42 days issue is an honourable and brave move; but for some of us, we've come to expect this from Davis who has a long history of speaking up for civil liberties. Tonight, a strong coalition is building around Davis and they clearly plan to take this fight to Brown and the country; persuading the majority of Britons who still believe in 42 days.

Any MP giving up his seat (and Davis could lose it) is remarkable.

Taking on a government backed by a large majority of people on a complex issue is remarkable.

Putting the right thing to do above your career is remarkable.

David Davis has a huge job to do and is now the unofficial spokesman for everyone who cherishes liberty; be it on ID cards, 42 day detention or the removal of trial by jury. Far from being a stunt, I am tonight very proud of Davis and if he brings the country with him on this, he could yet be the man who brings down Gordon Brown.

I blame Gordon Brown, Charles Clarke, the DUP, Ann Widdecombe, UKIP and the vast ranks of utterly stupid Labour MPs

I am against 42 days detention without trial; not least because it won't actually work but for 2 other reasons - firstly the loss of our historical rights in this country to have a fair trial without being detained by the force of law, and secondly I believe that works fills the time given to complete it - so if you give the police 42 days they will take it; I just don't believe they need this time because they could do the same work (technical or not, Mr Brown) in 28 days, which for the record I believe is still too long.

So the utterly pathetic sight of a Labour government (a LABOUR government) relying on the votes of Northern Ireland MPs who, quite frankly, sold out to Brown in order to introduce a piece of legislation that will both be authortarian and ineffective is sickening in the extreme.

I am disgusted; as you can tell; and I hold every single one of the Labour MPs and the sole Tory and UKIP MPs that voted for this law to be personally responsible for the erosion of our liberties.

Thank God for the House of Lords, and I cannot wait for the day when Clarke loses his seat and a new Conservative MP for Norwich South can vote to repeal this nasty piece of legislation.

HELM SNAP

That is, of course, the Lower Hellesdon, Earlham, Larkamand and Marlpit Safer Neighbourhoods Action Panel and its where I've been tonight. It is a collection of key agencies, including housing officers, the police, the council and the NELM development trust for residents to meet with and then a panel of members select the priorities for the area. They can be to do with crime, the environment or even planning and transportation. It was a fantastic event in which local peopel had their say on what was going on - and the powers-that-be having to sit, listen and then take action. I was slightly disappointed in the number of particularly City Council issues that were "still being actioned" but clearly a lot of work had taken place. Local MP Charles Clarke sat in to hear the debate and I hope he heard the message loud and clear - people are sick of the mess and fly tipping on the streets. They don't want rude kids making lives a misery by, for example, throwing things as their houses and hurlign abuse on the streets. They want to feel safe on the streets.

For what its worth I spoke up on the issues of clamping down on illegal mini motor bikes on the streets and pathways and also for a cleanup in West Earlham. I hope someone takes note and we aren't sitting here in 3 months wondering if somebody else might action it.

Three Score Park Meeting

Tonight John, Niki and myself went to a street meeting with the police, wardens and residents to discuss some of the atrocious events at the Three Score Park, on Caddow Road.

Young people throwing bottles at houses, swearing at residents, threatening other children, urinating on the play equipment, grafitti, revving their cars ... the list is endless.

The residents want a fence up between them and the park and also a signt to point out that this is a private road. Only the council won't do that because the road isn't adopted and the developers seem not to care. We are supporting the residents in their fight for this, but I do worry about two things.

Firstly that any changes provide a new target for these nasty thugs - they kick down fences as it is. And secondly if it does work, do we move these people onto the next community to harass? There seems to be no long term strategy here.

The police try their best but by the time they arrive the offenders have scarpered. So what can be done? What we need here is the rights of the law abiding residents being paramount. They shouldn't have to live in a fortress.

Changing the area with fences and chains is a good start but we need to tackle this behaviour at source. The police and wardens should patrol this area day and night to catch these youths and when they do they should be punished and seen to be punished.

We need to fight this as a community - the residents here should be proud of what they've done and now we need to support them.

Are there times when less is bad, more is good, less is good and more is bad?

This interest post from Norfolk Blogger made me think about a couple of related abuses of statistics.

The LibDems think that a reduction in the number of pupils eating school lunches is bad news and that the school meals service is in crisis. As Nich rightly points out, more pupils taking packed lunches is not a bad thing. It depends whats in the lunch box - I once saw a kid whose Mum packed him 6 Cadbury's Mini-Rolls for lunch but equally most pupils have a healthy and balanced lunch. It is simply not a statistic that you can draw many conclusions about and Nich is right to say that this was embarrassing for the LibDems.

But don't we see this all the time?

Some schools say that a low exclusion rate means good behaviour in their school. Not really, I'd rather have a school that will exclude to keep discipline than one who would rather keep disruptive kids in the classroom to keep their figures down. As a teacher, a low exclusion rate provokes two thoughts - either excellent discipline or a leadership team that won't support staff in maintaining discipline.

The same is true for crime statistics. Some say that low arrest rates are good. But doesn't it depend on how much crime is being reported and detected? Again, I'd rather have a police force with a high conviction rate meaning they were catching criminals rather than one with a low rate meaning they might be missing them or that people weren't reporting crime.

Politicians, on all sides, are too glib with these statistics. Sometimes the obvious reaction isn't the right one. High arrest rates and high exclusion rates can sometimes by good news for residents, parents and pupils.