Prison

As the weekend drifts closer, there is a case that Ed Miliband has just enjoyed his best week as Labour leader. Not really from anything he has done — although his PMQs performance had more vigour than usual — but thanks to the backwash from the Ken Clarke calamity. MiliE's spinners could barely have dreamed, even a few days ago, that their man would gain the the fiery approval of The Sun on matters of law and order. But that is effectively what they gained yesterday. "Labour is now tougher on crime," bellowed the paper's leader column, "than our Tory-led government." Even today their editorial laments, "so much for David Cameron's pledge to provide a young, modern government in tune with 2011 Britain.

The Ken Clarke media storm continues. But, talk to lawyers and they complain that the Justice Secretary did not have sufficient command of his brief to redirect Victoria Derbyshire’s line of questioning. There was one particularly illustrative example when she said: “(The starting points) for single offence of rape by a single offender are 10 years’ custody if the victim is under 13, eight years’ custody if the victim is 13 but under 16, and five years’ custody if the victim is 16 or over.” Those numbers look a little light and they create the impression that the justice system is soft on rapists. Clarke should have countered that Derbyshire’s example lies at the very bottom of the CPS’ sentencing guideline scale.

Prisoner voting is back on the agenda. The European Court of Human Rights has rejected the British government’s appeal and declared that the coalition has six months to draw up proposals to change the law.   David Cameron now has to decide whether to ignore the Strasbourg Court or go against the will of his MPs, who voted overwhelmingly to oppose giving prisoners the vote in response to the court’s initial decision. In many ways, ignoring the court is the safer option. Tory MPs aren’t inclined to back down on this issue and if Cameron tried to make them he would create a lot of ill-will and take an awful kicking from the press.

When it comes to the overall sway of British politics, Sadiq Khan's article for the Guardian is probably the most important of the day. We've heard Ed Miliband say before that, "when Ken Clarke says we need to look at short sentences in prison because of high re-offending rates, I'm not going to say he's soft on crime." But Khan's article, a summary of a speech he is giving later today, actually puts that sentiment into practice – and then some. His central argument is straight from the Hush Puppied One's playbook, particularly in its emphasis on the limitations of New Labour's policy: "Some claim crime fell because of the rise in the numbers imprisoned. But the relationship between crime rates and prison population is more complex than that.

PoliticsHome reports that the government is to ask the ECHR to reconsider its verdict in the prisoner voting rights case. The website says: ‘In a response to a parliamentary question from Labour MP Gordon Marsden, Cabinet Office Under-Secretary Mark Harper said: "We believe that the court should look again at the principles in "Hirst" which outlaws a blanket ban on prisoners voting, particularly given the recent debate in the House of Commons."’ This is unsurprising. Last month, the government asked its lawyers to advise on the ramifications of noncompliance. The lawyers were unequivocal: the repercussions of such defiance was diplomatically impossible and extremely expensive.

Another Saturday, another interview with Ken Clarke. This time, the bruised bruiser has been talking to the FT and the remarkable thing is that he has managed to say nothing. Not a sausage. Colleagues were not insulted, Middle England escaped unscathed and the European Court of Human Rights wasn’t even mentioned.  But Clarke conveys his determination to fight. He defends his prison reforms and community sentences, to which the right has now applied the grave term ‘misconceived’. Clarke retorts: ‘We are trying to take 23 per cent out of the budget. I don’t recall any government that’s ever tried to make any spending reductions on law and order – let alone 23 per cent.

The Davis Straw motion on keeping the ban on prisoner votes has just passed by 234 votes to 22. It is a crushing victory on what was a very good turnout given that both front benches were not voting. The 22 against the motion were a bunch of Liberal Democrats plus the Ulster MP Lady Hermon, the Plaid MPs Jonathan Edwards, Elfyn Llwyd and Hywel Williams, the Green Caroline Lucas,   Labour MPs Barry Gardiner, Kate Green, Glenda Jackson, Andy Love, Kerry McCarthy, John McDonnell, Yasmin Quereshi  and  one Tory Peter Bottomely, David Cameron now finds himself between a rock and a hard place. His MPs hate the idea of giving prisoners the vote and if he tries to force them to do it, he’ll end up in a very messy fight.

These are hard times for the government and there is no respite. Today, parliament will debate a prisoner’s right to vote, in accordance with the wishes of the resented European Court of Human Rights. The Guardian’s Patrick Wintour writes what many suspect: on the back of a free vote, the House will deny prisoners the right to vote in all cases and outlaw compensation claims. Such a result would seem a set-back for the government, which was thought to favour a limited franchise on prisoner voting. If it became law, then the government would apparently be at odds with the ECHR - precipitating an ignominious procession of grasping lags, searching for compensation at Strasbourg.

Thursday’s debate on the backbench motion on prisoner voting tabled by Jack Straw and David Davis is set to be a real parliamentary event – a rare occasion where the will of the elected legislature might just make a big difference.  The real news will not be how many endorse the ban, but which MPs – aside from those abstaining Government Ministers and Denis MacShane – choose to bow to Strasbourg.   MPs preparing to speak out against Strasbourg are now armed with a powerful academic case.  A new Policy Exchange report authored by the political scientist Michael Pinto-Duschinsky – Bringing Rights Back Home – outlines how the UK can address the growing problem of conflicts between judges and politicians in human rights cases.