Some on the Twittersphere have claimed that Gove's scaling back of the BSF scheme has hit 'Labour heartlands the hardest'. The basis of this claim lies in the fact that Labour MPs have had many more school building works 'Stopped'. However, what this claim completely ignores is that the BSF had many more projects - for better or worse - in Labour heartlands in the first place.
Here are the facts (which I took the trouble of downloading and analysing from the Guardian website):
The full scheme list contains 472 schools under Conservative MPs, 110 under Lib Dem MPs and 1016 under Labour MPs.
Of the school projects that were completely stopped: 267 were under Conservative MPs, 41 Lib Dem and 417 Labour.
So, undoubtedly, more projects have been cancelled in areas of Labour MPs. But that doesn't mean that Labour heartlands have been hit harder than everywhere else. Since 'the left' are so wrapped up in relativities:
57% of BSF projetcs in areas under Conservative MPs were stopped.
37% of BSF projects in areas under Lib Dem MPs were stopped.
41% of BSF projects in areas under Labour MPs were stopped.
Therefore, stop your bleating about 'hitting Labour harder' at once.
Friday, 9 July 2010
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Why those who want to legalise drugs are wrong...
One of the suggestions put forward for reducing the prison population is to decriminalise drug use. The argument, so it goes, is that by legalising drugs you will eliminate the associated black markets and culture that lead to many other types of crime. However, it is ridiculous to suggest that it will in one swoop eliminate all associated negative outcomes.
Firstly, drug legalisation would only work if it was a multilateral operation. Otherwise, by legalising just here, Britain will become a target for drug trafficers for supplies. With the easy crossings to Ireland and the continent via ferries and the channel tunnel, others would soon become angry that our liberalisation will simply displace the cost of screening for drugs onto them.
Closer to home, a judgment would still need to be made on how old one must be to be able to buy drugs. Presuming that this will mean outlawing drugs for children, a black market will still exist in supplying these age crimes. Thus, in essence, maintaining dealers.
Even these two arguments completely ignore the potential health effects, which could also have a high cost. Yes, we will be paying less in prison costs, but is this really worth the loss of life that could result from more prevalent drug-driving, overdosing and erratic behaviour? Some drugs have severely unpredictable consequences. On top of that, many people in prison have mental health problems, but medical evidence suggests some drugs cause mental health problems, thus further accentuating strains to the NHS and care services.
Of course, this is complete conjecture and I have no idea whether the use of drugs would increase or fall as a result of legalisation. I don't pretend to know figures on this stuff, but these are just a few thoughts that pop up in my head to counter the rosy view.
Firstly, drug legalisation would only work if it was a multilateral operation. Otherwise, by legalising just here, Britain will become a target for drug trafficers for supplies. With the easy crossings to Ireland and the continent via ferries and the channel tunnel, others would soon become angry that our liberalisation will simply displace the cost of screening for drugs onto them.
Closer to home, a judgment would still need to be made on how old one must be to be able to buy drugs. Presuming that this will mean outlawing drugs for children, a black market will still exist in supplying these age crimes. Thus, in essence, maintaining dealers.
Even these two arguments completely ignore the potential health effects, which could also have a high cost. Yes, we will be paying less in prison costs, but is this really worth the loss of life that could result from more prevalent drug-driving, overdosing and erratic behaviour? Some drugs have severely unpredictable consequences. On top of that, many people in prison have mental health problems, but medical evidence suggests some drugs cause mental health problems, thus further accentuating strains to the NHS and care services.
Of course, this is complete conjecture and I have no idea whether the use of drugs would increase or fall as a result of legalisation. I don't pretend to know figures on this stuff, but these are just a few thoughts that pop up in my head to counter the rosy view.
Clarke's choice is right. Emphasis is wrong
There is no clear-cut answer to dealing with the growing prison population. But whilst the more extreme right-wingers call for tougher sentencing and more prison places, most who have digested the evidence realise it would be in the best interests of the nation to target the causes of crime.
Deep down, I hope that Ken Clarke has reached the same conclusions. Though I suspect that his keynote speech outlining less short-term prison sentences was borne more out of a desire to cut his budget than a sudden change in his view of human nature. If the Secretary of State really intends to back voluntary rehabilitation groups and make community sentencing more effective, than these aspects should have been the emphasis of his speech. Magistrates clearly only send non-violent criminals to jail as a last resort, suggesting that it isn't the prison system that is not working, but that the community sentencing is not tough enough and the support networks for rehabilitation not strong enough, to turn previous 'bad eggs' into 'good eggs'.
Clarke has opened himself to criticism by announcing this change of policy in a cuts environment, meaning that critics can roundly sound off that "he's only doing it to save money spent on prisons." But if he doesn't complement the savings of less people going to jail with an even greater investment in community sentence, rehabilitation programmes and mental health support, then the shift will actually cost the tax payer more money. Police and court cases are expensive. He would have got far more credit for talking of INVESTMENT in these projects to attempt to solve the causes of minor crimes. I just hope that his choice of emphasising reduced prison numbers is his long-term aspiration from good policy, rather than a policy in itself.
Deep down, I hope that Ken Clarke has reached the same conclusions. Though I suspect that his keynote speech outlining less short-term prison sentences was borne more out of a desire to cut his budget than a sudden change in his view of human nature. If the Secretary of State really intends to back voluntary rehabilitation groups and make community sentencing more effective, than these aspects should have been the emphasis of his speech. Magistrates clearly only send non-violent criminals to jail as a last resort, suggesting that it isn't the prison system that is not working, but that the community sentencing is not tough enough and the support networks for rehabilitation not strong enough, to turn previous 'bad eggs' into 'good eggs'.
Clarke has opened himself to criticism by announcing this change of policy in a cuts environment, meaning that critics can roundly sound off that "he's only doing it to save money spent on prisons." But if he doesn't complement the savings of less people going to jail with an even greater investment in community sentence, rehabilitation programmes and mental health support, then the shift will actually cost the tax payer more money. Police and court cases are expensive. He would have got far more credit for talking of INVESTMENT in these projects to attempt to solve the causes of minor crimes. I just hope that his choice of emphasising reduced prison numbers is his long-term aspiration from good policy, rather than a policy in itself.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)