Coffee House

‘Prisoners are not getting the vote’, Cameron confirms

24 October 2012

David Cameron was in a particularly irritable mood at Prime Minister’s Questions today. But he did what he needed to do and made clear that ‘prisoners are not getting the vote under this government’. It seems there may be another Commons vote to further demonstrate the will of the House on this matter. If there is, it’ll be fascinating to see whether the Attorney General, who is far more concerned about upsetting the Strasbourg court than his Conservative colleagues, chooses to excuse himself.

Ed Miliband enjoyed mocking the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in his questions; I’ve rarely seen the Labour leader more confident on his feet at PMQs. But Cameron, even on slightly poor form, now has a ready-made response: to point to the encouraging economic news. His remark that ‘the good news is going to keep on coming’ is being taken by many as a sign that the Prime Minister has a reason to believe that tomorrow’s GDP figures will show the country is out of recession. This will give the coalition a chance to really push its message that the ‘economy is healing’.

I suspect there’ll also be attention to Tom Watson’s question about a paedophile ring linked to a previous Number 10. What evidence there is for this claim, though, remains unclear.

More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

  • mikewaller

    The issue of voting rights for prisoners is unspeakably stupid. Were they granted, the odds against there having any electoral impact are almost infinitesimal. Indeed, if having a vote aroused an interest in politics amongst prisoners it might just draw their minds away from further refining their criminal propensities. Have not MPs – the PM included – got better things to spend their time on. My sad conclusion is that they like this kind of topic because it gives them a chance to posture!!!

    • Vulture

      It’s a matter of principle Mr Waller. No foreign court should decide on British law. The fact that Cameron was prepared to bow to the foreign judges until he saw his party wouldn’t wear it speaks volumes for his supine attitude to Europe, as does his retention of Euro-toady Grieve in his job. Dave is a Euro-toady too. The UK Parliament has voted almost unanimously against giving cons the vote. That should be the end of the matter. Or do you believe a foreign court should ovrerride our own elected representatives?

      • mikewaller

        I favour commonsense over what you consider patriotism. I also recall that whilst our splendid politicians and courts were prepared to leave several innocent businessmen in jail over the super-gun affair, it was a European court that got them out. One other piece of advice: I have found the following rule of thumb useful: Steer clear of anything David Davies chooses to involve himself in.

        • Vulture

          I agree with you abt DD, but I do believe in the supremacy of an elected Parliament over an unelected bench of foreign judges, some from countries with shall we say their own rather dodgy history of progressive penal methods. Besides I hate David Cameron and I don’t trust him on this or any other issue.

          • mikewaller

            I think that those looking for a way out of the EC have not got to grips with the sheer scale of the problems this country and the rest of the West are facing.In the final analysis, the US could preserve its own internal standards of living by turning to protectionism. We rely so heavily on impost/export as to have no chance. In “The Hollow State” a brilliant series of programmes shown in the run-up to the 1997 election, an American academic had this to say about the realities of globalisation: “If you are Mr Beckham you can virtually write your own cheque; but if you are a coolie, expect coolie wages. I don’t believe that people in this country are going to be very happy with coolie wages, so being part of a much larger market in which the standard of living is broadly comparable with our own seems to me to make a lot of sense. If all else fails, we can trade amongst ourselves.

            • Fergus Pickering

              Yeah. A common market, which is what we voted for way back then. But not what we got, a political union, which is what the politicians wanted all along.

  • Colonel Mustard

    Watson achieved what he wanted to. Moronic headlines of “Paedophile ring linked to No.10″ which will be enough to damage the current government further in the eyes of the Thicksville mob, the product of Labour’s education and brainwashing scandals.

    A nasty bunch Labour, whose stock in trade is and always has been to smear their opponents and seek unfair advantage by it, never missing any passing bandwagon opportunity to do so.

    • james102

      It was the late Sir Peter Morrison, but it was Edwina Currie’s biography that had the accusation.
      I would guess Labour and the LibDems are not too keen to have a spotlight pointed at them about perverts in their parties, so won’t push it.

    • telemachus

      And you Tory bastards never smear?
      You certainly stick the knives in- hestletine, thatcher, Hague and worst IDS

      • Colonel Mustard

        The difference, my smelly and unlearned friend, is between “never” and “always”. Labour’s whole political ethos and creed is based on the continuous creation of enemies (usually by caricature) and then the smearing them. What do you think the entirely bogus concept of “equality and fairness” is really about?

  • james102

    The Attorney General sounds like a medieval cardinal saying Rome’s authority is absolute.
    Secular democracies don’t have absolute laws. We don’t need judge-priests to check the sacred writings—the electorate decide.

  • HooksLaw

    Its the job of the attorney general to be worried about possibly breaking the law – so why bring him up as something special.
    Ask Lord Goldsmith.

    Watson is grandstanding on an Edwena Curry claim previously published by the Sunday Times. Labour are really worried that problems at the BBC might kick out a few lefties aren’t they?

Can't find your Web ID? Click here