Is the worm turning?

[kynon]

Had to stop off to fill the car up this morning (GBP66 to put 50 litres in, ouch! For any North American residents reading, that's USD8.02 per gallon, in case you felt your gasoline prices were a bit high. For the old-school Brits, that's GBP9.62 per gallon. Anyway, I digress.), and I noticed a headline on one of the newspapers arrayed in the rack

Comments

[kerida_eira]

I'm with you on this one

[green_badger]

Hmmm... I think your argument falls down when our elected government utterly fails to stick to their manifesto. If we can't guarantee the government creating laws that are the will of the people, then we do need to allow prisoners to vote.

Of course the better solution would be some way of holding the government accountable. xxx

[kynon]

Unfortunately the previous gubmint (successfully) legally argued that manifestos aren't worth the paper they are written on, and that political parties are under no legal obligation to stick to what they said in those manifestos.

I don't follow the logic of your argument about governments not doing what the people want leading to giving prisoners the vote, I'm afraid.

AFAIAC, if convicted under due process of a crime, then your membership of society is under suspension, and you lose whatever rights (above basic human rights) you had as part of that society until you have paid the price.

[green_badger]

What's the point of manifestos at all then? Argh!

Anyway, the argument goes, that should the government randomly decide that as part of their Evil Tory Plan TM they're going to make being a goth illegal, and prosecute us all for going to Whitby, then after we'd been locked up for it we'd still be able to vote them out.

Of course if the laws are made according to manifestos and therefore (presumably) the will of the people, you don't need this as a safety clause. In which case I'm with you on suspending membership of society, etc. xxx

[kynon]

Unfortunately, with such minority-bashing, voting the gubmint out would require a hell of a lot more people to vote against them than just us dirty goffiks - and since most people in the Uk these days couldn't give a flying castlemaine about anything that doesn't *directly* affect them, it'd be porridge for us.

Also unfortunately, at the moment, the "will of the people" only extends as far as choosing who will act as our representative in parliament. After that, well, who knows?

Oh for fuck sake

[thegreatgonzo]

1) This has fuck all to do with the EU this is VERY important, it is the European Court of Human Rights which was set up under the European convention on human rights which was drawn up by the council of Europe. Lots of people, including parts of the media like the Express are telling deliberate lies as part of an anti EU agenda

Re: Oh for fuck sake

[kynon]

My apologies, I am guilty of conflating the two. However (from the Council of Europe's own website) there is a European Convention on Human Rights, and a Universal Declaration on Human Rights. What's the point of having two? One would imagine they can't contravene each other, so why bother with the duplication? (Caveat: I have not read either in detail...yet

Re: Oh for fuck sake

[thegreatgonzo]

The point about the ECHR, the real value it has over the UDHR is the Court. There is a body that is actually checking that the nations that have signed up to this are playing by the rules. It is no surprise that people can get confused between the CoE and the EU given that they have an awful lot of overlap in membership but is a bad thing when the media are deliberately muddying the water as part of their little englander agenda.

Re: Oh for fuck sake

[asw909]

kynon: The flipside, of course, is that (particularly for short-term, say under four years, sentences) giving these prisoners the vote might actually be an assistance in ensuring that they might be of more use to society in future - you know, by not feeling excluded from the system (but then, more work by the Government to actually bother to do something about issues stemming from poverty, rather than cutting every scheme in sight, might help too) and feeling that they can be part of society, rather than a burden on it as a prisoner.

Also (I'm hoping thegreatgonzo might be able to confirm this), isn't it the case that MPs don't lose their seat if they go to prison for less that 12 months? If this is indeed the case, I'd have rather more confidence in the MPs vote this week if they were able to clarify why that is still in place. As that would result in the perverse situation of a jailed MP effectively being entitled to make/shape laws, but not vote for the Government that make them.

[cheekbones3]

To my mind, the argument comes down to whether prison is about punishment or rehab. If you say it's both, then you fail at debating :)

I'm firmly on the rehab side, so anyone that's due out within a reasonable period of time I think deserves to be able to vote, as one of the planks of returning to part of civic society.

[kynon]

In that case, prepare for imminent debating failure! :P

I think the nature of prison depends on the crime committed - some crimes are probably better suited to the convicted person being rehabilitated, while others should definitely fall into the punishment/public safety category. I'm not, however, going to offer distinctions between specific crimes, as to do so (as obliquely noted above on the number of "crimes" possible in the UK these days) would probably keep us busy until the end of time!