Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Thatcher & Blair - The Last Days in Parallel
Clinging on, desperately.
Love the picture on that article.
He's Daffy Ducked, isn't he? And he hasn't the sense/good grace to admit it and leave. His arrogance blinds him.
9 years ago he was the most popular Prime Minister of all time. Just goes to show that polls can say pretty much what you want them to say.
But yes, I would like to think that if I was in a similar position, I would shrug, and walk off the national stage. The more he clings on, the more he damages his party and his legacy. And the longer he clings on, the more likely his own party will turn against him and effectively sack him, like the end of Thatcher....
The parallels are chilling, aren't they? The question is, is Brown the new Heseltine - the lightning rod for dissent, and a king-in-waiting, who is pipped at the post by an unexpected candidate who rides the wave of a party fracture? Brown knows his history and no doubt this will have occurred to him.
Yes, the parallels are there. Thatcher won a landslide in 1987, and was gone before the end of that parliament as she became an electoral liability at the same time as alienating her party. Blair didn’t win a landslide in 2005 (although his result was more than respectable), he is now an electoral liability and is alienating his party even more than usual. Gone by September. Brown is definitely a Heseltine figure but none of the potential Blairites (Reid, Miliband, Milburn) match the Major model as they are so clearly identified with Blair. Major was seen as Thatcherite, but he was a relatively new figure in Tory politics and therefore detached from both the Thatcher and Heseltine camps. A similar figure in Labour today might be Alan Johnson or Margaret Beckett – neither is particularly identified with the infighting that has been going on since 2004 so they might be seen as safe candidates. Brown is politically astute, but he needs to be seen as loyal to Labour, not just to his own cause, if he wants to avoid a Major-esque figure snatching his long-awaited prize.
If we are looking at parallels, who will be the Geoffrey Howe figure who ultimately stabs Blair in the back and forces the leadership contest? By historical precedent it will be someone who used to be in the cabinet, in a senior position, such as Foreign Secretary, who was forced out of that role through no real fault of their own.
It could be Jack Straw’s great contribution to history...
Frank Dobson?
Or even, Charles Clarke?
They both tick all the boxes you list, and they both have a mighty grudge with Blair.....
Frank Dobson is another one with real potential. Not sure about Charles Clarke, however. He matches the spec in that he is really p*ssed off with Blair but he left the cabinet more owing to his own incompetence rather than Blair pushing him out.
Love the picture on that article.
He's Daffy Ducked, isn't he? And he hasn't the sense/good grace to admit it and leave. His arrogance blinds him.
9 years ago he was the most popular Prime Minister of all time. Just goes to show that polls can say pretty much what you want them to say.
But yes, I would like to think that if I was in a similar position, I would shrug, and walk off the national stage. The more he clings on, the more he damages his party and his legacy. And the longer he clings on, the more likely his own party will turn against him and effectively sack him, like the end of Thatcher....
The parallels are chilling, aren't they? The question is, is Brown the new Heseltine - the lightning rod for dissent, and a king-in-waiting, who is pipped at the post by an unexpected candidate who rides the wave of a party fracture? Brown knows his history and no doubt this will have occurred to him.
Yes, the parallels are there. Thatcher won a landslide in 1987, and was gone before the end of that parliament as she became an electoral liability at the same time as alienating her party. Blair didn’t win a landslide in 2005 (although his result was more than respectable), he is now an electoral liability and is alienating his party even more than usual. Gone by September. Brown is definitely a Heseltine figure but none of the potential Blairites (Reid, Miliband, Milburn) match the Major model as they are so clearly identified with Blair. Major was seen as Thatcherite, but he was a relatively new figure in Tory politics and therefore detached from both the Thatcher and Heseltine camps. A similar figure in Labour today might be Alan Johnson or Margaret Beckett – neither is particularly identified with the infighting that has been going on since 2004 so they might be seen as safe candidates. Brown is politically astute, but he needs to be seen as loyal to Labour, not just to his own cause, if he wants to avoid a Major-esque figure snatching his long-awaited prize.
If we are looking at parallels, who will be the Geoffrey Howe figure who ultimately stabs Blair in the back and forces the leadership contest? By historical precedent it will be someone who used to be in the cabinet, in a senior position, such as Foreign Secretary, who was forced out of that role through no real fault of their own.
It could be Jack Straw’s great contribution to history...
Frank Dobson?
Or even, Charles Clarke?
They both tick all the boxes you list, and they both have a mighty grudge with Blair.....
Frank Dobson is another one with real potential. Not sure about Charles Clarke, however. He matches the spec in that he is really p*ssed off with Blair but he left the cabinet more owing to his own incompetence rather than Blair pushing him out.
Friday, April 07, 2006
War in Iraq: What Do We Do Now?
The Nameless Tory:
The War on Iraq – What Do We Do Now?
The temptation is to run away. Iraq is drifting into Civil War, and our troops are dying to defend a country that seems bent on tearing itself apart. Look at highly emotive films like Fahrenheit 9/11 – the death of our troops is upsetting and traumatic. But Fahrenheit 9/11 is a piece of propaganda – there is no getting away from that. And it also fails to answer the key question of “what happens if the coalition pulls out?”
If we leave at this point I think the country will descend into Civil War. There will be rape, murder, ethnic cleansing and general anarchy that would really allow for terrorist training camps to be set up. A crucial land mass in the centre of the most troubled region in the world would be completely lawless. And whatever way you look at it, it would be a catastrophe for the Middle East and possibly the world.
There is also a moral argument attached to this. Disregarding whether or not it was right to invade Iraq (for the record I think removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing – what was reprehensibly stupid of the Bush-Blair Axis was to fail to take into account what might happen in Iraq and the complete failure to put in place any sort of exit strategy prior to invading) we now have a moral obligation to accept the consequences of our actions. We caused the anarchy in Iraq. We have a moral duty to stay until it is sorted out.
Two examples to illustrate this: America bombed Cambodia. Cambodia fell into the hands of the terrible Pol Pot. The US refused to accept responsibility for their actions. Millions were tortured and millions were murdered. This is what could happen if we leave Iraq. On the flip side we have the example of Northern Ireland. The UK stood its ground in the province, over generations. It cost the lives of both those in the army and those in civilian life, but the UK refused to retreat. And we are now in a position were peace finally seems to be on the cards. This could also happen if we stay in Iraq.
Therefore I would argue that the troops stay for as long as it takes to bring some semblance of order to Iraq. We caused the problems, we sit tight until we have found a way to sort it out. It will cost us more lives, but those in the army accept the risks involved when they join up.
It will be hard, it could take decades, but we stay.
That said, we do need to qualify the decision to stay in Iraq:
1. Those in Iraq are equipped properly. If our troops are fighting for us, they should have every resource available to protect themselves.
2. Our leaders accept the reality of what is going on in Iraq. The Vietnam War was not called a war for a very long time, and the troops there were observers for too long. The US government refused to acknowledge the war they were in. And we all know what that refusal to accept reality ended in. Iraq is, realistically, in Civil War. Let’s face the fact, so we can deal with the fact.
3. Iraq’s leaders should be pushed and prepared to take over government and the effective running of the country as soon as possible.
4. If we have to raise the troop numbers in Iraq to guarantee the safety of the troops who are already there, or to help achieve our overall aims (or both), we do so. Bringing troops home is a good headline, sending more out is bad. But again – face reality – if it has to be done, then let’s do it. This is war, not a media exercise.
Oh, and we do not embark on any other Middle East campaigns until the mess in Iraq is sorted. And if we need to deal with Iran etc in the future, we remember Iraq. At the moment Iraq is called “another Vietnam”. Let’s not have Iran described in the future as “another Iraq.”
The Moai:
There are a number of parts to this problem. Firstly, when one looks at the narrative that drew us into all this, it appears that nobody planned for what is happening now.
In contrast, look at Bosnia, where the aim was explicitly bringing about peace and stabilizing the nation. Quietly, with little media attention (well all the war correspondents are in Basra), the Balkans nations are making their way in the world. The British, Dutch and Scandinavian soldiers there established and enforced a peace that has now become self-sustaining. Nations that, 15 years ago, were knee-deep in bodies, are now sending singers to the Eurovision Song Contest. The peace keeping experience of British troops in Northern Ireland was invaluable in the Balkans.
So, why are the Balkan nations making their way, but Iraq is tearing itself apart? Well, for a start, it has been made plain to the Serbians et al that peace is far more profitable than war. They stand to gain far more, as individuals and as a nation, if they join the other nations of Europe, just over their borders. Secondly, they are surrounded on all sides by supportive, functioning democracies. Finally, nations *could* coherently be formed because a certain re-drawing of borders was possible (witness the division of the former Yugoslavia).
Contrast Iraq. At least four distinct ethnic groups within a nation whose borders were drawn arbitrarily, and are unlikely to be redefined. No functioning democracy nearby (save Israel) and a lot of people who stand to gain, actively, from continuing violence. Finally, the incendiary effect of radical Islamic sects. For all these reasons, what worked in the Balkans, and for that matter in post-WW2 Europe and in Japan will not work. In fact, I am struggling to think of an accurate, successful historical precedent - as you point out, we really don't want a Cambodia/Vietnam rerun. The transition from the Byzantine to the Ottoman Empire may be instructive. Anyway, I digress.
It seems as if George and his best mate Tony waded in without considering if many people in Iraq *wanted* western-style democracy; and anyway, one cannot create such a system overnight. That system of government relies on an appropriate body of law, officials who understand what it means, and a population who are engaged with the expectations of the ballot box. Iraq has none of these factors.
As this shows the US seems to be slowly accepting the truth of the situation, and what actually has to happen after a war. It seems self evident that GWB had no clue what would happen in the power vacuum after Saddam's fall; he has now been forced to engage with those who stepped into that vacuum, however distasteful they may be.
Finally, the tendency to replace jargon for a physical plan cannot be ignored.
The War on Iraq – What Do We Do Now?
The temptation is to run away. Iraq is drifting into Civil War, and our troops are dying to defend a country that seems bent on tearing itself apart. Look at highly emotive films like Fahrenheit 9/11 – the death of our troops is upsetting and traumatic. But Fahrenheit 9/11 is a piece of propaganda – there is no getting away from that. And it also fails to answer the key question of “what happens if the coalition pulls out?”
If we leave at this point I think the country will descend into Civil War. There will be rape, murder, ethnic cleansing and general anarchy that would really allow for terrorist training camps to be set up. A crucial land mass in the centre of the most troubled region in the world would be completely lawless. And whatever way you look at it, it would be a catastrophe for the Middle East and possibly the world.
There is also a moral argument attached to this. Disregarding whether or not it was right to invade Iraq (for the record I think removing Saddam Hussein was a good thing – what was reprehensibly stupid of the Bush-Blair Axis was to fail to take into account what might happen in Iraq and the complete failure to put in place any sort of exit strategy prior to invading) we now have a moral obligation to accept the consequences of our actions. We caused the anarchy in Iraq. We have a moral duty to stay until it is sorted out.
Two examples to illustrate this: America bombed Cambodia. Cambodia fell into the hands of the terrible Pol Pot. The US refused to accept responsibility for their actions. Millions were tortured and millions were murdered. This is what could happen if we leave Iraq. On the flip side we have the example of Northern Ireland. The UK stood its ground in the province, over generations. It cost the lives of both those in the army and those in civilian life, but the UK refused to retreat. And we are now in a position were peace finally seems to be on the cards. This could also happen if we stay in Iraq.
Therefore I would argue that the troops stay for as long as it takes to bring some semblance of order to Iraq. We caused the problems, we sit tight until we have found a way to sort it out. It will cost us more lives, but those in the army accept the risks involved when they join up.
It will be hard, it could take decades, but we stay.
That said, we do need to qualify the decision to stay in Iraq:
1. Those in Iraq are equipped properly. If our troops are fighting for us, they should have every resource available to protect themselves.
2. Our leaders accept the reality of what is going on in Iraq. The Vietnam War was not called a war for a very long time, and the troops there were observers for too long. The US government refused to acknowledge the war they were in. And we all know what that refusal to accept reality ended in. Iraq is, realistically, in Civil War. Let’s face the fact, so we can deal with the fact.
3. Iraq’s leaders should be pushed and prepared to take over government and the effective running of the country as soon as possible.
4. If we have to raise the troop numbers in Iraq to guarantee the safety of the troops who are already there, or to help achieve our overall aims (or both), we do so. Bringing troops home is a good headline, sending more out is bad. But again – face reality – if it has to be done, then let’s do it. This is war, not a media exercise.
Oh, and we do not embark on any other Middle East campaigns until the mess in Iraq is sorted. And if we need to deal with Iran etc in the future, we remember Iraq. At the moment Iraq is called “another Vietnam”. Let’s not have Iran described in the future as “another Iraq.”
The Moai:
There are a number of parts to this problem. Firstly, when one looks at the narrative that drew us into all this, it appears that nobody planned for what is happening now.
In contrast, look at Bosnia, where the aim was explicitly bringing about peace and stabilizing the nation. Quietly, with little media attention (well all the war correspondents are in Basra), the Balkans nations are making their way in the world. The British, Dutch and Scandinavian soldiers there established and enforced a peace that has now become self-sustaining. Nations that, 15 years ago, were knee-deep in bodies, are now sending singers to the Eurovision Song Contest. The peace keeping experience of British troops in Northern Ireland was invaluable in the Balkans.
So, why are the Balkan nations making their way, but Iraq is tearing itself apart? Well, for a start, it has been made plain to the Serbians et al that peace is far more profitable than war. They stand to gain far more, as individuals and as a nation, if they join the other nations of Europe, just over their borders. Secondly, they are surrounded on all sides by supportive, functioning democracies. Finally, nations *could* coherently be formed because a certain re-drawing of borders was possible (witness the division of the former Yugoslavia).
Contrast Iraq. At least four distinct ethnic groups within a nation whose borders were drawn arbitrarily, and are unlikely to be redefined. No functioning democracy nearby (save Israel) and a lot of people who stand to gain, actively, from continuing violence. Finally, the incendiary effect of radical Islamic sects. For all these reasons, what worked in the Balkans, and for that matter in post-WW2 Europe and in Japan will not work. In fact, I am struggling to think of an accurate, successful historical precedent - as you point out, we really don't want a Cambodia/Vietnam rerun. The transition from the Byzantine to the Ottoman Empire may be instructive. Anyway, I digress.
It seems as if George and his best mate Tony waded in without considering if many people in Iraq *wanted* western-style democracy; and anyway, one cannot create such a system overnight. That system of government relies on an appropriate body of law, officials who understand what it means, and a population who are engaged with the expectations of the ballot box. Iraq has none of these factors.
As this shows the US seems to be slowly accepting the truth of the situation, and what actually has to happen after a war. It seems self evident that GWB had no clue what would happen in the power vacuum after Saddam's fall; he has now been forced to engage with those who stepped into that vacuum, however distasteful they may be.
Finally, the tendency to replace jargon for a physical plan cannot be ignored.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Reform of the Lords (Part 2)
The model of the US Congress is not ideal but interesting nonetheless – the Senators in the Senate are elected for 6 year term, the Representatives in the House are elected for 2 year terms. There are 100 Senators, 435 Representatives. The number of Senators per State is 2, the number of Representatives depends on the population of the state.
With a bit of adaptation the Lords could be our Senate, the Commons our House of Representatives.
With a bit of adaptation the Lords could be our Senate, the Commons our House of Representatives.
Reform of the Lords: if any....
The Nameless Tory:
The toothless 'Second Chamber?'
Interesting phrase to use – and it shows the way the Lords is perceived. As a second tier organisation when compared to the Commons. And rightly so – it can send legislation back to the Commons but ultimately it can be over-ridden. Also, it is not democratically elected so there is no accountability. And the leader of the country sits in the Commons, meaning the Commons will always be seen as superior. Which leads some to question what is the point of having a second chamber which is little better than a debating forum for elderly ex-MPs and wealthy friends of the political parties?
Again I would maintain that debate in itself is a worthy end. Plus the Lords have been able to get controversial legislation at least amended. That said I personally like a properly two tiered parliamentary system and would favour the Lords having a bit more power to propose legislation and veto other legislation. In other words, I want the Lords to have more power.
The reason why it has always been controversial to propose more power for the Lords is because historically they have been unrepresentative and also because they are unaccountable. Therefore I would propose a House of Lords that remains a second tier chamber to the Commons but also:
The Lords will be democratically elected – the Lords are elected for fixed terms of ten years, thus giving them a longer term view point but at the same time as giving them accountability
There will be around 200 Lords, less than the House of Commons but representing regions of the UK rather than constituencies, giving the Lords a more national perspective and hopefully freeing up the MPs to spend more time working on their constituencies
They will have the power to propose legislation, and send it to the Commons, as long as the legislation is passed by two third’s of the Lords
They will have the power to veto legislation from the Commons, again with a two third’s vote from the Lords.
They will elect a President/Leader of the Lords who will act as a spokesperson for the Lords and also act as a Deputy Prime Minister – performing the more ceremonial functions of the Prime Minister (and hopefully giving the Prime Minister more time to govern.
These thoughts are off the top of my head and are subject to change.....
The Moai:
I agree wholeheartedly with this, especially this:
'If you are a rich man, and you are so public-spirited as to donate squillions to a political party, so that its members can get on with their task of understanding and improving the condition of the country, then you should surely be encouraged, not vilified. The last thing we want is for the whole political clerisy to be bankrolled exclusively by the taxpayer, with state funding for all manner of cranks, bigots and extremists. If Chai Patel and others want to give money to Labour or to the Tories, then I see no reason why they should not be rewarded with a suitable gong for their philanthropy: on two conditions.
First, that they should in future give on condition that the gift (or loan) is public; and second, that they cannot thereby ascend to the legislature. It is time to end this crisis, and rescue the Lords, by insisting on a fully elected chamber, in which all peers are chosen by the same method, and yet without the same democratic mandate as the commons....'
The toothless 'Second Chamber?'
Interesting phrase to use – and it shows the way the Lords is perceived. As a second tier organisation when compared to the Commons. And rightly so – it can send legislation back to the Commons but ultimately it can be over-ridden. Also, it is not democratically elected so there is no accountability. And the leader of the country sits in the Commons, meaning the Commons will always be seen as superior. Which leads some to question what is the point of having a second chamber which is little better than a debating forum for elderly ex-MPs and wealthy friends of the political parties?
Again I would maintain that debate in itself is a worthy end. Plus the Lords have been able to get controversial legislation at least amended. That said I personally like a properly two tiered parliamentary system and would favour the Lords having a bit more power to propose legislation and veto other legislation. In other words, I want the Lords to have more power.
The reason why it has always been controversial to propose more power for the Lords is because historically they have been unrepresentative and also because they are unaccountable. Therefore I would propose a House of Lords that remains a second tier chamber to the Commons but also:
The Lords will be democratically elected – the Lords are elected for fixed terms of ten years, thus giving them a longer term view point but at the same time as giving them accountability
There will be around 200 Lords, less than the House of Commons but representing regions of the UK rather than constituencies, giving the Lords a more national perspective and hopefully freeing up the MPs to spend more time working on their constituencies
They will have the power to propose legislation, and send it to the Commons, as long as the legislation is passed by two third’s of the Lords
They will have the power to veto legislation from the Commons, again with a two third’s vote from the Lords.
They will elect a President/Leader of the Lords who will act as a spokesperson for the Lords and also act as a Deputy Prime Minister – performing the more ceremonial functions of the Prime Minister (and hopefully giving the Prime Minister more time to govern.
These thoughts are off the top of my head and are subject to change.....
The Moai:
I agree wholeheartedly with this, especially this:
'If you are a rich man, and you are so public-spirited as to donate squillions to a political party, so that its members can get on with their task of understanding and improving the condition of the country, then you should surely be encouraged, not vilified. The last thing we want is for the whole political clerisy to be bankrolled exclusively by the taxpayer, with state funding for all manner of cranks, bigots and extremists. If Chai Patel and others want to give money to Labour or to the Tories, then I see no reason why they should not be rewarded with a suitable gong for their philanthropy: on two conditions.
First, that they should in future give on condition that the gift (or loan) is public; and second, that they cannot thereby ascend to the legislature. It is time to end this crisis, and rescue the Lords, by insisting on a fully elected chamber, in which all peers are chosen by the same method, and yet without the same democratic mandate as the commons....'
Thursday, March 23, 2006
We do not send enough people to prison.
The Nameless Tory:
OK, good topic to start with.
We need to understand what prison does before we can discuss those points. Prison must serve (at least) one of the following purposes:
1. Punishment
2. Reformation
3. Imprisonment of those who are a danger to society.
And those objectives are potentially contradictory. If you are punishing someone, it is difficult to reform them at the same time. Equally, if you are looking to reform someone then sending them to prison, where they will be surrounded by other criminals, might be the worst possible thing to do. And some people are clearly a danger to others, but if prison is genuinely to reform people, then the concept of life meaning life has to be abolished. But then again, can you reform Dennis Nielsen or Peter Sutcliffe?
If prison is to play a meaningful part in today’s society, perhaps we need to focus more on the deterrence side. People should be afraid of going to prison. And it also needs to be clear what crimes will result in what sentences. We need to be sending the right people to prison. Is there any point in sending Pete Doherty to prison, where he can buy more drugs? No, there is more mileage in sending him on enforced rehab. Equally, if someone commits an assault, they should know that they will be going to prison and the length of the sentence will depend on the severity of the assault. Also people need to have more faith in the sentencing laws. If you can get 20 years for using a forged note and 7 years for raping someone, well, people are not going to respect the prison/justice system, are they?
Probation probably needs to play a part in the debate.
The Moai:
As does early release, which has been involved in a frightening number of recent murders.....
When you read what that gang did to those two girls, you struggle to believe that there were no warning signs.
Sion Jenkins is another interesting point. In theory you can only stand trial for the same offence once in this country. He has had multiple trials and is still not, in the eyes of the media and therefore the eyes of the general public, and innocent man. And the one striking thing is that regardless of whether he is innocent or not, a child killer is walking the streets. This has to be seen on some levels as a failure of both the police and of the criminal justice system.
As ever, statistics comes into the debate. It is often said that we imprison a lot of people in this country compared to the European average BUT when you look at how many we bang up compared to our (relatively high) crime rate, it is actually far less than comparable economies. See here.
The imprisonment-for-its-own-sake function of prison is seriously underestimated by policy makers. I have seen whole communities breathe a sigh of collective relief when a one-man crime-wave is finally incarcerated, and they know they can safely leave their cars out in the street again. Similarly, the same people feel utter dismay when these individuals are released. My own village was different place for the two years when a certain evil b*stard I went to school with was finally banged up after his umpteenth offence. He has moved now, and similarly, the relief is palpable.
Prison is no longer a deterrent. If it was, reoffending would not be as high as it is.
As for reforming the Sutcliffes et al of this world, I would argue they are not criminal as such, they are ill and must be treated. And if they are not treatable, permanently incarcerated. This is another good example of someone who should have been treated or at least kept away from the public - an awful, awful case.
I once read that forgery, fraud etc. get higher sentences because of the relative rarity of these crimes - judges do not become inured to them, unlikely assault, mugging, and all the other petty things that only happen to plebs - and because more often than not, the government itself is a victim.
I would point out that Sutcliffe is not mentally ill. He claimed to be schizophrenic and is being treated at a mental hospital, but there is strong evidence he knew exactly what he was doing and was in control when he killed. Legally, you are criminally insane if you are not in control of your actions – the best way of explaining it is the case of John Christie. At a trial a psychiatrist was asked whether Christie would have killed repeatedly if a policeman was stood next to him. The answer was no – therefore he was in control of his actions. Amongst other things, Sutcliffe had a pair of trousers with the crotch cut out so he could pleasure himself as he killed. And when he was arrested he hid his weapons and managed to appear little more than a man soliciting sex. He may have had terrible, violent impulses but he did have a choice – and he chose to act on them.
A good example of someone who murdered then was released to kill again is Henry Lee Lucas. He murdered his abusive mother and served his time, before being released. He then went on a killing spree across America which, if his confessions are to be believed, may have claimed up to 350 lives. Interestingly, he is also the only death row inmate granted clemency whilst George W Bush was Governor of Texas.
The reason why forging money gets such a high tariff if because it is seen as attacking the infrastructure of the state. Although if you want to be popular and looked after in prison, forgery is a good thing to go down for.
OK, good topic to start with.
We need to understand what prison does before we can discuss those points. Prison must serve (at least) one of the following purposes:
1. Punishment
2. Reformation
3. Imprisonment of those who are a danger to society.
And those objectives are potentially contradictory. If you are punishing someone, it is difficult to reform them at the same time. Equally, if you are looking to reform someone then sending them to prison, where they will be surrounded by other criminals, might be the worst possible thing to do. And some people are clearly a danger to others, but if prison is genuinely to reform people, then the concept of life meaning life has to be abolished. But then again, can you reform Dennis Nielsen or Peter Sutcliffe?
If prison is to play a meaningful part in today’s society, perhaps we need to focus more on the deterrence side. People should be afraid of going to prison. And it also needs to be clear what crimes will result in what sentences. We need to be sending the right people to prison. Is there any point in sending Pete Doherty to prison, where he can buy more drugs? No, there is more mileage in sending him on enforced rehab. Equally, if someone commits an assault, they should know that they will be going to prison and the length of the sentence will depend on the severity of the assault. Also people need to have more faith in the sentencing laws. If you can get 20 years for using a forged note and 7 years for raping someone, well, people are not going to respect the prison/justice system, are they?
Probation probably needs to play a part in the debate.
The Moai:
As does early release, which has been involved in a frightening number of recent murders.....
When you read what that gang did to those two girls, you struggle to believe that there were no warning signs.
Sion Jenkins is another interesting point. In theory you can only stand trial for the same offence once in this country. He has had multiple trials and is still not, in the eyes of the media and therefore the eyes of the general public, and innocent man. And the one striking thing is that regardless of whether he is innocent or not, a child killer is walking the streets. This has to be seen on some levels as a failure of both the police and of the criminal justice system.
As ever, statistics comes into the debate. It is often said that we imprison a lot of people in this country compared to the European average BUT when you look at how many we bang up compared to our (relatively high) crime rate, it is actually far less than comparable economies. See here.
The imprisonment-for-its-own-sake function of prison is seriously underestimated by policy makers. I have seen whole communities breathe a sigh of collective relief when a one-man crime-wave is finally incarcerated, and they know they can safely leave their cars out in the street again. Similarly, the same people feel utter dismay when these individuals are released. My own village was different place for the two years when a certain evil b*stard I went to school with was finally banged up after his umpteenth offence. He has moved now, and similarly, the relief is palpable.
Prison is no longer a deterrent. If it was, reoffending would not be as high as it is.
As for reforming the Sutcliffes et al of this world, I would argue they are not criminal as such, they are ill and must be treated. And if they are not treatable, permanently incarcerated. This is another good example of someone who should have been treated or at least kept away from the public - an awful, awful case.
I once read that forgery, fraud etc. get higher sentences because of the relative rarity of these crimes - judges do not become inured to them, unlikely assault, mugging, and all the other petty things that only happen to plebs - and because more often than not, the government itself is a victim.
I would point out that Sutcliffe is not mentally ill. He claimed to be schizophrenic and is being treated at a mental hospital, but there is strong evidence he knew exactly what he was doing and was in control when he killed. Legally, you are criminally insane if you are not in control of your actions – the best way of explaining it is the case of John Christie. At a trial a psychiatrist was asked whether Christie would have killed repeatedly if a policeman was stood next to him. The answer was no – therefore he was in control of his actions. Amongst other things, Sutcliffe had a pair of trousers with the crotch cut out so he could pleasure himself as he killed. And when he was arrested he hid his weapons and managed to appear little more than a man soliciting sex. He may have had terrible, violent impulses but he did have a choice – and he chose to act on them.
A good example of someone who murdered then was released to kill again is Henry Lee Lucas. He murdered his abusive mother and served his time, before being released. He then went on a killing spree across America which, if his confessions are to be believed, may have claimed up to 350 lives. Interestingly, he is also the only death row inmate granted clemency whilst George W Bush was Governor of Texas.
The reason why forging money gets such a high tariff if because it is seen as attacking the infrastructure of the state. Although if you want to be popular and looked after in prison, forgery is a good thing to go down for.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Statement of Intent
The Purpose
To create a forum where people from all over the web can debate policies, suggest ideas, and generally speak freely about what direction they would like the UK to move in.
Background
The Moai and The Nameless Tory are, on paper, at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Typical greetings to each other include “Communist scum” from The Nameless Tory and “Capitalist Pig Dog” from the Moai. And yet, recently, two odd things have happened. Firstly, both have come to feel that no party in the UK represents them. And secondly, when they sit down and debate political issues properly and intelligently, there is a lot they agree on.
Further to these realisations comes a critique of modern politics in the UK. This nation has politicians who are solely focussed on the next election, which makes them afraid to say anything controversial or unpopular, or pursue a policy that will come to fruition outside of the life time of a parliament. And the fact is the country needs people who are willing to take a risk, say something controversial, and look beyond a five year term in power.
Since our elected politicians won’t do it, someone else must. Which is why the United Kingdom Democratic Forum (UKDF) has been created.
How it works
The Moai and The Nameless Tory will discuss key areas of policy, and then publish a topic on the UKDF with a few thoughts. Then – for a stated period of time – the debate is open to anyone who wants to comment (as long as the comments are not offensive – controversial and imaginative ideas are fine.) When the debate is closed, the Moai and The Nameless Tory will pull together the disparate strands, thoughts and threads and then agree on a coherent policy. This will then be published as the policy for the UKDF.
The Future
So, why contribute?
Well, debate in itself is a worthy aim – to express ideals, to have them challenged, to adapt/defend them is an intellectual challenge. But hopefully the UKDF will be more than an online debating society. If decent policies are created, the UKDF can look at ways of bringing them to the attention of a wider audience. The UKDF can seek to change the way people think and potentially change the agendas of our political parties. But it can only do that if it has the ideas and the backing of a wide spectrum of people.
This much is clear – the political ideas of this nation’s politicians are at best holding the nation in limbo, and at worst letting the country slip backwards. This forum is an attempt to find new ideas to stop that.
To create a forum where people from all over the web can debate policies, suggest ideas, and generally speak freely about what direction they would like the UK to move in.
Background
The Moai and The Nameless Tory are, on paper, at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Typical greetings to each other include “Communist scum” from The Nameless Tory and “Capitalist Pig Dog” from the Moai. And yet, recently, two odd things have happened. Firstly, both have come to feel that no party in the UK represents them. And secondly, when they sit down and debate political issues properly and intelligently, there is a lot they agree on.
Further to these realisations comes a critique of modern politics in the UK. This nation has politicians who are solely focussed on the next election, which makes them afraid to say anything controversial or unpopular, or pursue a policy that will come to fruition outside of the life time of a parliament. And the fact is the country needs people who are willing to take a risk, say something controversial, and look beyond a five year term in power.
Since our elected politicians won’t do it, someone else must. Which is why the United Kingdom Democratic Forum (UKDF) has been created.
How it works
The Moai and The Nameless Tory will discuss key areas of policy, and then publish a topic on the UKDF with a few thoughts. Then – for a stated period of time – the debate is open to anyone who wants to comment (as long as the comments are not offensive – controversial and imaginative ideas are fine.) When the debate is closed, the Moai and The Nameless Tory will pull together the disparate strands, thoughts and threads and then agree on a coherent policy. This will then be published as the policy for the UKDF.
The Future
So, why contribute?
Well, debate in itself is a worthy aim – to express ideals, to have them challenged, to adapt/defend them is an intellectual challenge. But hopefully the UKDF will be more than an online debating society. If decent policies are created, the UKDF can look at ways of bringing them to the attention of a wider audience. The UKDF can seek to change the way people think and potentially change the agendas of our political parties. But it can only do that if it has the ideas and the backing of a wide spectrum of people.
This much is clear – the political ideas of this nation’s politicians are at best holding the nation in limbo, and at worst letting the country slip backwards. This forum is an attempt to find new ideas to stop that.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Test Posting #2
Hopefully this will work... if it does then more will follow later on what we are trying to do.
Monday, March 13, 2006
test posting
First post on the UK Democratic Forum Blog, brought to you by The Moai and The Nameless One....
