Prisoner frustration...

The ECHR doesn’t do itself any favour with issues like prisoner voting, and it is very disappointing to those of us keen to promote Britain in Europe that such a relatively minor yet emotive issue can give the opportunity for runaway euro-phobic headlines in the Express, Mail and elsewhere.

            What is more disappointing, however, is that some labourites, see mileage in promoting a pro a voting rights view; perhaps I am being narrow-minded, a bad liberal, and shooting down open debate, in which case sorry, but really, whilst it is a perfectly honourable view that participation in society should form part of rehabilitation, this is the definition of an issue where we should find a sensible consensus to comply with the law without being at odds with the feeling of natural justice that most people share, and move on to more important matters.

             The Jack Straw motion, noting the judgement and the fact the matter has now been debated by the supreme legislature, as had been noted to the contrary in the judgement, is the most sensible way forward in the mean time; medium-term the model used elsewhere of a ‘loss of civic rights’ sentence added to serious offences, or base it on sentence / tariff, would seem sensible.  Denis MacShane's piece linked below is closer to my thinking and raised some interesting wider points.

            The idea of being forced to give prisoners additional rights, however worthy the arguments, and most especially any idea of paying compensation, is wholly at odds with most people’s sense of fairness, and we really can’t risk any chance of being seen to disagree with that.  Instead of wasting ink on this, lets instead talk about –

1 – The ECHR, tell people what it is, what it has achieved, what involvement Britain had in it’s creation and has today, and what we want to see change to make it more efficient.

2 – Why our prison population is so high, and why many people found guilty of relatively minor offences, more than capable of voting, are incarcerated at great tax payer expense [just check out your local paper], and what we can do to get sensible about it and help to tackle the causes of crime as well.

Now that would be worthy of as many articles as care to be written.

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/columns/column.asp?c=604

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/articles/article.asp?a=7528

Embracing the Big Society...

Phil Redmond approaching minor national treasure status means his piece on the Big Society in Liverpool is at least worthy of consideration, and is in fact very thought provoking, as is Tessa Jowell’s piece on the Labour response to the idea, although I find the big picture issues highlighted worthy, but somehow lacking in our response to the idea on the ground as it fast approaches.

            We have had long enough to kick the concept of the big society around, but it just won’t quite settle anywhere; despite the best efforts of the coalition to undermine their leader’s flagship policy through local and central government cuts that have the potential to hugely undermine the very third sector that they plan to thrust to the fore [seen today in the news of Eric Pickles showdown with the powers on trying to protect the voluntary sector], there are no signs yet that the big society is going to drop off the end of the world, and we had better start dealing with it.

            The Labour line, as demonstrated by Ms. Jowell, is to talk about the ‘good society’, roughly the same but somehow better, if only for not being tory; but this is of minimal consequence and really won’t wash; the concept of the big / good / more involved / more civic society is one that, however gimmicky it may be made to sound at times, is a concept that will resonate with people who are basically doing it already, and have been all their lives.  If they feel that the government are somehow on their side, even with scant financial help in ‘tough times’, there are people up and down the land who will respond positively, and we need a more coherent narrative to show we are firmly behind them too, and that the tories are turning their hard work into political capital.

            Where we have Labour run councils, like in the big society vanguard city of Liverpool, they cannot be seen to be obstructionist to the concept of the third sector delivering public services at all levels, where the will and capability is there, and where it may well be more efficient.  In all areas, Labour Councillors and activists should be involved and supportive of all positive community endeavours, after all if they elect us they are ‘our’ communities, and if they don’t we need to show them that they ought to.  In the south in particular, where in so many places we are beyond thinly spread, you had better believe that every tory and liberal flyer will have a councillor or candidate living the ‘big society dream’, and if we are to make inroads we must be on the bandwagon too; in reality there are members who are at the heart of their communities and always have been, we just need to sell it as well as the others surely will.  Much is written on this subject and I dearly hope it translates into visibility on the ground.

            Whether the term Big Society is here to stay or goes on the summer breeze, it is, at it’s most basic, about being a good person, involved with your community, and willing to muck in, and that idea is very much here to stay, and we all know people who embody it; we may just need to grit our teeth and embrace the trappings rather than risk being labelled as anti-community.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/feb/07/phil-redmond-liverpool-big-society

http://progressonline.org.uk/articles/article.asp?a=7520

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/07/big-society-volunteering-eric-pickles