We've always known that there would be trouble when it became clear that the UK would have no option but to comply with the demands of the European Court on Human Rights and give all sentenced prisoners the right to vote. The last Labour government put a decision off for as long as possible and the present Tory part of the coalition government has absolutely no stomach for giving convicted prisoners the opportunity to vote, despite the wishes of their Liberal Democrat partners. But they are fast running out of options because if something isn't done by the autumn, prisoners might start winning compensation claims that it's estimated would cost the government well over £100 million.
As a result, the government have very reluctantly attempted a 'fudge' by suggesting that prisoners serving less than four years could be allowed to vote. It was always unclear whether this would be acceptable either to the ECHR or indeed to Tory back-benchers, but it seems former Labour Justice Secretary Jack Straw has decided to enter the fray by teaming up with Conservative loose cannon David Davies to force the issue. According to the BBC they have managed to convince the appropriate Commons committee to allow a debate on the subject, possibly in early February. Both are of course completely against the idea of caving into a directive from the ECHR and will argue it is a matter for the UK's sovereign Parliament to decide. In any vote it looks like Labour would join rebel Tory back-benchers and therefore would stand a good chance of inflicting a government defeat.
Basically coming hard on the heels of notorious gang-land boss Colin Gunns unedifying victory in winning the right to be called 'Mr' by prison staff, the public and many politicians are in no mood to see prisoners gaining yet more rights and I have to say I agree. I know there is an argument that enfranchising prisoners could be seen as part of helping them take responsibility, but there is also an argument that says deprivation of liberty for punishment should involve loss of certain rights such as casting a vote. The issue should at least be decided by a nations sovereign legislative body in my opinion. In passing, I notice that the BBC has taken the opportunity to show a clip of former prisoner John Hirst getting severely mauled by Andrew Neil last year on the Daily Politics Show. The performance was not edifying for either party and I suspect will do nothing to support the cause of prisoner voting rights.
I'd rather give those that wish to a vote than risk paying them lots of cash.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have any idea how many will exercise the right, spread over how many seats and with what potential effect on results? I think the answers are likely to be 'few', 'thinly' and 'nil' respectively.
Good blog, but why do you say it could cost the government £100m in compensation claims? I'd be happier to see you adopt the convention of 'taxpayer' rather than 'government' when it comes to costs.
ReplyDeleteIt's our money; governments just throw it away.
Ray.
Hi
ReplyDeleteCalling incarcerated men Mr is just common decency, prisoners are not subhuman, people are not sent to prison to be degraded by staff with power fixations and delusions of superiority!
As for the vote, everyone should have it and this government needs to stop messing around, we joined Europe, we agreed to be bound by these directives so they need to drop the petulant attitude and buyers remorse and get on with doing what they've been told to do, IE: enfranchising all prisoners, not just the fluffier ones...
On the principle I am very concerned that anyone (over a certain age - which is another debate) should be denied the vote. Yes I would even give it to Mad Peers! If prisoners can't vote why not remove it from ex-prisoners or people with criminal convictions or motoring convictions or women, or non property owners?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of what would be the effect I suspect very little. They used to have "mock" elections in some prisons - not sure when the practice stopped but I found this reference from the 1950s.
“Two mock elections were held in Dartmoor while we were there. And on each occasion the Tory Party received an overwhelming majority, polling something like three hundred out of five hundred votes. Labour came a poor second, then Liberal with Communism gaining fewer than ten votes ... a possible explanation for the Tory victory is that the crook, of all people, stands for private enterprise and individualism; yet crooks form less than a third of Dartmoor’s population, the rest being made up of sex offenders and violent types. No doubt Conservatism has something for everyone." (Source: G Dendrickson and F Thomas The Truth about Dartmoor (1954) Page 107)
What is the logic behind the vote only being allowed for short term prisoners? is it to do with the perceived severity of the crime committed? I only ask because my gut instinct is the opposite, and that longer term prisoners should be allowed to vote.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteI find it a tad curious that you appear to be against enfranchising prisoners , whilst writing eloquently on the pitfalls of resettlement.. indeed the Prison Governors Ass noted that the ban ' runs counter to resettlement work , which aims to assist prisoners leading law abiding lives on release'..interestingly all those on Suspended Sentences ( which cross the custody threshold) have voting rights.. maybe ex-prisoner FF8282 now Lord Archer could throw some light on this topic ..after all he may have a casting vote at some point.. Straw's sham twice over Consultation on this issue, after the European Judgement in favour of giving prisoners the vote, may have bought him time, but populism was always his strongest suite.
Regards
Mike
Some people, and we all know at least 'some' are really and honestly to stupid to vote. They should be actively discouraged from leaving the house, never mind encouraged to decide who is going to ru(i)n the country.
ReplyDeleteMadness.
Thanks for the comments everyone - whether to enfranchise serving prisoners is an emotive subject and views clearly differ. I cannot understand the logic of suggesting those serving four years or less can vote, but not others. It's a mess but I still remain of the view that it should be the decision of the UK Parliament, not as a result of an ECHR ruling. Lets see what the debate in the Commons produces.
ReplyDeleteI confused things a bit by mentioning the instruction as to the appropriate form of address for prisoners. Different forms of address are appropriate at different times and the instruction is silly. It won't do anything to address issues of respect in my view, in fact quite the opposite possibly. I have grown weary of continually being called 'Sir' by staff when prison visiting when it is clearly not meant and does nothing to address barely hidden contempt.