Prison

Labour wants to be the party of law and order

Andy Coulson was right to worry about the coalition’s law and order policies: Labour is trying to outflank the government from the right. Sadiq Khan and Yvette Cooper have cut assured figures at fringe events at this year’s conference, sensing that the government’s cuts to the law and order budget will imperil one of Labour’s positive legacies: substantially reducing reported crime (by 43 per cent according to Sadiq Khan) between 1997 and 2010. A strange atmosphere pervades the law and order fringe: the name ‘Tony Blair’ is spoken of with something approaching respect and it is met with scattered applause. Blair’s memory is profane to this incarnation of the Labour

Clarke is right to focus on reoffenders

The Justice Secretary Ken Clarke – who was away during the disturbances last month – has signalled his return with an uncharacteristically tough piece in today’s Guardian. The reference to the rioters as a “feral underclass” is not language that the penal reform lobby will welcome from their favourite Minister, but it does signal a firmer line from the Justice Secretary: “In my view, the riots can be seen in part as an outburst of outrageous behaviour by the criminal classes – individuals and families familiar with the justice system, who haven’t been changed by their past punishments.” This reference to the criminal classes is what police officers will recognise

Cameron: Governments should provide enough prison places to satisfy the courts

The row over sentencing rioters has morphed into a row about prison numbers and safety. Cathy Newman has been issuing a steady stream of tweets all afternoon, revealing that the Ministry of Justice is concerned about overcrowding and safety in prisons and young offenders’ institutions: an internal memo discloses that 2 convicted rioters have been assaulted and hospitalised. This is not altogether surprising: prisons are not exactly renowned for offering new inmates a genteel welcome. Still, it provides ammunition for those who oppose the courts’ stern response to the riots. There is now a record 86,654 incarcerated people in Britain; compared to 85,253 people the week before. The Ministry of Justice insists

Cameron’s missed opportunity

As David noted earlier, the big headline in Nick Clegg’s speech this morning is that the government will hold some kind of inquiry into the riots after all. This climb down in the face of demands from Ed Miliband makes it all the more baffling that Cameron didn’t announce his own inquiry earlier. If he had taken the initiative, he could have determined both its terms of reference and membership which would have ensured that it came up with the right answers. But, in policy terms, I suspect the more important announcement is that prisoners leaving jail will now be placed straight into the work programme. The work programme, masterminded

Blunt’s flawed rehabilitation programme

The decisions of Crispin Blunt, the prisons’ minister, are hard to fathom. One wonders why-as the Daily Mail reports today — he allowed a man convicted of killing five people to give an unapologetic interview to a magazine. Blunt’s defence is that it wouldn’t have been right for him to stop it. That may be the case but that doesn’t explain his decision to send a press officer to assist with the whole procedure. Rehabilitating prisoners is vital if we are going to tackle crime in this country. But it is hard to see how this kind of thing — or parties in prison — help that noble aim. Rather

The government’s soft touch on the unions may need to tighten

The government is determined not to seem like the aggressor in the coming dispute with the unions. It wants to stress that it is being reasonable and David Cameron’s speech today to the Local Government Association will be a classic example of this strategy. At the same time, it is trying to put in place contingency plans so the country can carry on regardless of industrial action. Those close to the coalition’s negotiating team point to how a well developed plan to use the army in place of striking prison officers deterred the Prison Officers Association from taking industrial action over the ‘privatisation’ of a prison. The question is whether

Clarke’s bill still not tough enough for the Right

David Cameron made a great show on Tuesday of pledging to be tough on crime. He bowdlerised the most contentious and liberal elements of Ken Clarke’s proposals and vowed that “the right thing to do is to reform prison and make it work better, not cut sentences.”  He insisted that his change of heart was a sign of strength, but even the least cynical observer could detect a sop to the mutinous Tory right. Well, it seems that the withdrawal has not gone far enough. The Sunday Times reports (£) that several backbenchers object to the redrafted Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, on grounds that manifesto pledges

When u-turns matter

When I asked one Tory how things were going the other day, he replied “we’re living by that Silicon Valley phrase: ‘fail fast and fail often’.” His argument was that for all that we in the press work ourselves into a frenzy over u-turns, the public don’t much care about them and it is much better to get these things out of the way quickly.   When I challenged him that all these shifts made Cameron look weak, his rejoinder was that as long as the coalition stuck to its deficit reduction programme voters would know that it could hang tough when it needed to.   I suspect that this

Cameron muscles Clarke off the stage

The toughening-up effort continued with David Cameron’s press conference just now. There he was, at the prime ministerial lectern, not just announcing a stricter sentencing system than Ken Clarke broached a few weeks ago, but explaining why the government’s change of mind was actually “a sign of strength”. Out are the 50 per cent sentence reductions for those who plead guilty early. In is a commtiment to jail those caught using a knife threateningly, as well as a bundle of tougher measures all round. “Being strong is about being prepared to admit that you didn’t get everything right the first time around,” said Mr Cameron, again and again. His other

James Forsyth

Lib Dems wary of “Tory traps”

The government’s u-turn on sentencing reveals something quite important about the Lib Dems’ approach to coalition. Despite having backed Ken Clarke in private, they have stayed as far away as possible from the issue in public.   The Liberal Democrats were determined not to put themselves on the wrong side of the public on this issue, to end up copping the blame for ‘soft sentencing’. As one senior Liberal Democrat said to me recently, “we’re determined not to walk into any bear pits. If there is a big flashing neon sign above something saying ‘Tory trap’, we’ve got to be disciplined enough not to fall into it.”   Clegg’s circle

Cameron gets tough

Toughness, or at least the appearance of it, is clearly the theme of the week on Downing Street. After the vacillations over NHS reform, David Cameron seems to be going out of his way to sound that little bit more hard. There’s the headline on the front of today’s Times, for instance: “Cameron to Europe: not one penny more.” And there was the PM’s claim, yesterday, that a Tory majority government would be “tougher” on immigration and welfare. Even the recent hyperactivity of Michael Gove is, I’m sure, all part of the plan, given that schools reform is broadly one of the areas where the government will (probably) never apologise,

Boris’s one-two punch against the coalition

Boris, we know, has never had any compunctions about distinguishing his views from those of the coalition government. Take his recent proclamations on the unions or on the economy, for instance. But his latest remarks are still striking in their forthrightness. Exhibit A is the article he has written for today’s Sun, which — although it doesn’t mention Ken Clarke by name — clearly has the Justice Secretary in mind when it exhorts that “it’s time to stop offering shorter sentences and get-out clauses.” And Exhibit B is his column for the Telegraph, which waxes condemnatory about Greece and the euro. As George Osborne struggles to limit our involvment in

Cameron’s u-turns come at a price

David Cameron hasn’t wasted much time since his return from holiday in dealing with the government’s two biggest political vulnerabilities: its policies on the NHS and criminals. The u-turns have got Cameron into a better place politically but they come at a cost. On the NHS, Cameron has had to water down the Lansley reforms and accept the temporary creation of a two-tier NHS and a highly bureaucratic structure. While on sentencing, Cameron has removed one of the ways that Ken Clarke was trying to save money. But, perhaps, the biggest problem with these u-turns is that they add to the impression that he’s not prepared to stand and fight,

James Forsyth

Cameron’s easy ride

Having u-turned on two more policies in the last two days, one would have expected David Cameron to have a hard time today at PMQs. But he didn’t. Ed Miliband never got going, turning in one of his worst PMQs’ performances. Cameron pithily summed up Miliband’s performance when he joked that ‘the best thing that can be said about his performance is he wasn’t thinking about politics on his honeymoon.’ Miliband’s performance today will add to the low-level grumbling about him among some Labour MPs and members of the shadow Cabinet. Miliband has a big speech coming up on Monday and he needs it to deliver a rationale for his

Cameron stamps on Clarke

Ken Clarke was summoned to Downing Street yesterday, the BBC reports. He spoke to David Cameron for half an hour, after which the controversial sentencing review was dropped: there will not be a per cent fifty discount in plea bargaining and Clarke will have to find £130m of savings from elsewhere in his department. Clarke has paid for last month’s rape victim fiasco, which so incensed the party leadership. The government is adamant that this is not a u-turn; rather, it argues, it has consulted on extending plea bargaining from the current level of 30 per cent and decided against such a move. It points to a report issued by

Yes, There Is A War on Drugs

John Rentoul’s column in the Independent on Sunday this week was uncharacteristically unpersuasive. His text was Mencken’s aphorism that “There is always a well-known solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong” and Mr Rentoul suggested the Cardoso Commission’s report on drug legalisation is an example of this approach. Well, perhaps. But I think “neat, plausible, and wrong” actually better characterises the Drug Warriors mania for prohibition. To which one might add “ineffective” too. Most advocates* of decriminalisation or legalisation (as Rentoul says, two different approaches) concede that these alternatives will not eradicate all of the problems associated with drug use but argue instead that they will make

The Lucifer Effect

Today’s papers are full of comment on the brilliant Panorama exposé of care home abuse. But none have mentioned what jumped out at me: the parallels between this and the Stanford Prison Experiment. The way that the tattooed Wayne treated his mentally ill patients is sickening — but, to me, this is not just a story about human evil. It’s a story about how institutionalisation brings out the evil in people, and that this evil is far closer to the surface than we like to admit. Philip Zimbardo, a psychology professor at Stanford, randomly divided 25 volunteers to play the roles of prisoners and guards in a poorly-regulated, mock prison.

Clarke’s crimes

One of the Conservative leadership’s worries at the moment is that the party is losing its reputation for being tough on crime. So it won’t welcome today’s Daily Mail splash about how a prisoner was granted permission by Ken Clarke to father a child by artificial insemination.   Now, we don’t know the precise details of the case, meaning that it is hard to come to a firm judgement. But I understand that when he was justice secretary Jack Straw rejected these kind of applications. He was, one familiar with the issue tells me, of the view that prisoners should not be allowed to benefit from non-medically necessary NHS services.

What the attorney general needs to do

I’m sure that all CoffeeHousers know who the footballer is with the super injunction preventing newspapers from publishing anything about his affair with the Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas. But if you didn’t, the papers would have made pretty odd reading over the past few days because the press keeps making little in jokes that are only funny if you know the player’s identity. David Cameron this morning announced that he knew the identity of the player.  This highlights one of many ironies of the situation, which is that far more people are now aware of who the errant footballer is than would have been if the news had just