Meadowcroft on crime

The previous post deals with the folly of the Tory policy of mandatory prison sentences for  the second offence of carnying a knife.  On a broader front my friend Michael Meadowcroft has written to the Yorkshire Post outlining wider criticisms of right wing "get tough" policies.

TO: THE EDITOR, THE YORKSHIRE POST

                                                                                                                               10^th May 2014

Dear Sir

Grant Woodward’s article (Get-tough over sentences won’t stop scepticism, May 8) is yet another repetition of the standard fallacies associated with crime and deterrence.

No-one doubts that there are heinous crimes that require severe punishment but this really should not be confused with effective combating of future crime nor of prevention of re-offending. The victims of violent crime and their families are, of course, entitled to see the perpetrators punished but it is the responsibility of the justice system, and of politicians, sensitively to explain to them the reality of what works and what does not work.

First, it is the likelihood of getting caught that is a deterrent not the severity of the sentence. Take burglary- which I am familiar with, having suffered fifteen of them - if we only convict 13% of the burglars, the odds of 15 to 2 are excellent and they will carry on, whatever the penalty. But if we caught 80% it would not be worthwhile, even with minimal penalties. The proof of this lies with motor offences. Why are all driving more slowly? Because penalties for speeding have soared? Not at all - it is simply because the advent of the dreaded speed cameras have vastly increased the likelihood of being caught.

Second, it is simply not the case that all murderers are dangerous. Many commit the crime in domestic circumstances that are highly unlikely ever to recur. A murder case I was personally closely involved with some years ago was one such. The otherwise respectable young man from a stable and loving family committed an appalling murder - a crime of passion - and was duly convicted. It was accepted by the prosecution and by the justice system that he was in no way dangerous but the mandatory life sentence meant that over ten years of his life was wasted in prison. It is also salutary to realise juries will not convict someone  who has committed the manifest “mercy killing” of a terminally ill relative if they believe that they would go to prison.

Third, prison is not an effective means of preventing re-offending for the vast majority of cases. The prisons are now so overcrowded that the prison service is unable to do the rehabilitation work it very much wants to do. There are still a few specialist units that achieve significant results, at a high cost, but these are increasingly rare. So we lock more men and women up at an immense cost and wait for them to come out and re-offend! We need many more probation officers, within the public service, in order to reduce their caseloads and to achieve the changes in behaviour that we all want.

So, please Mr Woodward, if you genuinely wish to reduce crime, look at the facts rather than the slogans and be brave enough to campaign for what works.

Yours faithfully

Michael Meadowcroft

The article to which Michael responded can be found at:

 http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/columnists/grant-woodward-getting-tough-over-sentences-won-t-stop-scepticism-1-6604019

Courageous Clegg

Shortly after the stabbing of teacher Ann Maguire in her classroom in Leeds Nick Clegg was asked on his London Radio phone-in programme if he supported having  airport-style electronic security machines to vet pupils as they entered school.  No, he didn't, he said, and felt that Mrs Maguire wouldn't have wanted that either.

Now Clegg and, as far as I can tell, most if not all of the Liberal Democrat parliamentary team, are refusing to support the Tory call for the mandatory imprisonment of anyone convicted for the second time of carrying a knife.  At a time of media hysteria generated by the Leeds stabbing, and with Labour cravenly supporting the knee-jerk reaction, this takes political courage.

I can see no case for mandatory sentences for any crime.  There is a Yorkshire saying which one of my uncles was fond of quoting:

                           Circumstances alters cases just as noses alters faces. 

(I'm afraid I don't know how to write this to indicate a Yorkshire accent)

That is why we have magistrates and judges to evaluate each case on its merits and decide, after hearing all the evidence, an appropriate remedy.  If that leads to something of a" post-code lottery" so  be it.  That's what democracy is all about.

Apart from mandatory imprisonment failing to take into account individual circumstances (eg a gang member spotting the police and quickly handing his knife over to a younger lad or an accompanying girl) Tories should be reminded that it was one of their Home Secretaries who admitted : "Prison is an expensive way of making bad people worse."  We should be making fa more use of non-custodial sentences, which are not only more effective but also much less costly.

So congratulations to Nick and our MPs for being a beacon of sanity  in the midst of pre-election populism.  That is what Liberalism should be all about.

 The opinion polls show our support down to 10% (bless them) but I believe our true  core support is at least double that, provided we stick to and have the courage to propagate our fundamental beliefs.

Cable sits carefully on the fence.

On Monday the Guardian headlined its article on the attempted take-over of AstraZeneca by Pfizer as: "Coalition rift over £69bn offer fro UK drugs company."

I find it sad that even the so-called responsible press describe  reasonable differences between the coalition partners  in the language of strife. Even single parties are, in the classic phrase, "coalitions of opinion" so it is reasonable to expect that when two or more parties form the government the differences of opinions will be wider. 

Grow up, Guardian, and report our democracy as working as R A Butler correctly described it: "Government by discussion."  There is every expectation that any differences of opinion can and should be resolved by "quiet calm deliberation"  as Gilbert and Sullivan put it in the Gondoliers.

Whilst both David Cameron and George Osborne  seem keen on the deal Vince Cable has expressed caution, trying to keep an "open mind" but not ruling out the possibility of using his statutory veto, though acknowledging this would be serious step.

Cable's  is a sensible approach because:

•  it would be unwise tactics to be too openly opposed to both the prime minister and the chancellor of the exchequer
• overseas investment in our motor industry is seen as a great success
• Britain itself has not in the past been all that shy of establishing or taking over enterprises in other economies, and may wish to continue doing so.

Osborne in particular may be tempted by the idea of an influx of £69 billion worth* of foreign currency into our balance of payments accounts, which are in a parlous state.  However, if he looks at any standard A-level text book he will see that  the downside is a future negative flow of profits interest and dividends to the foreign owners.

In addition it is a commonplace in the textbooks that foreign ownership generally means that high grade management functions, and high grade research, tend to be concentrated  the foreign economy, and any downsizing in the event of a recession tends to take place first in operations in the non-host economies.

I am no expert on the pharmaceutical industry, but it doesn't not seem to me that there are any scientific advantages to the proposed take-over, or synergy from a joint operation.  Rather this will result in an increase in monopoly power in an already oligopolistic industry, and a reduction in the competition that is supposed to be such a stimulus to enterprise in a capitalist system.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion  that the main motive in the take-over is to take advantage of the UK's disgracefully low profits taxes  (21%, soon to be 20%, compared to 35 to 40% in the US),  and, given Pfizer's recent closure of its factory in Kent, and the experience of  Kraft's broken promises after their take-over of Cad bury, any promises regarding the maintenance of research , development and employment, particularly high-grade employment, in the UK, are probably not worth tuppence.

So the argument for rejecting the offer seems to be overwhelming.  We desperately need a major "plus" from Liberal Democrat participation in government.  Let's hope this is it.

I have long believed that the pharmacy industry takes the rest of us for a ride, claiming  that it needs high profit margins in order to finance research, and then spending most time and money on research on minor "Western" problems such as erectile dysfunction and fripperies such as creams to remove the hairs on ladies' legs,  with not much on world killers such as malaria,  typhoid, cholera and diarrhoea. I believe there is a strong case for nationalising the lot of them, or at least setting up a government owned and funded rival which will become the preferred provider for the NHS.  That could be something for our next manifesto.

* If the deal goes through some of the purchase will be in shares rather than money, so the whole £69bn may not show up in the accounts.

Difficult, and not so difficult, decisions

It has become a commonplace that when our politicians talk about "difficult decisions" the difficulties they create impinge mainly, indeed almost exclusively, on those lest able to bear them.

In an astonishing article this week George Monbiot points out that whereas we humble have to pay the full whack of the cost  of a passport or driving licence, the price of gun licences,  which cost the police £196 to process, is to remain, at the personal diktat of the prime minister,  unchanged at £50.  And the subsidy for grouse moors is to be increased from £30 per hectare to £50 per hectare.  It comes as a surprise to me , and I suspect to most, that there is any subsidy at all for moorland.

And this, of course, at a time when the budget for welfare is being pared to the bone in order to eliminate the government deficit.

Monbiot concludes his article: There are a dozen ways in which [the government] could have discharged the deficit without inflicting cuts in social security or other public services,

and lists them as follows:-

1. a land value tax*
2. more council tax bands*
3. a flat (presumably percentage) council tax*
4. a Robin Hood (Tobin-type, or financial transactions) tax
5. an effective clampdown on tax avoidance. . . .
6. . . .and on tax evasion.

Well, actually that's only half a dozen, or five if  2 and 3 are alternatives.  So here, to fill the gap, are my own additions:
   
     7.  an effective inheritance tax*
     8.   capital gains tax on principal private residences*
     9.   restoration of the 50% rate of income tax, with provision for higher rates on higher incomes
   10.   an end to tax exemptions on pension contributions over and above that necessary to create a "pot"                      sufficient  to produce the median income.

We're still two short of a dozen so here are a couple based on my personal prejudices:
     11.  a fine of £1 000 for every time any politician uses the phrases " difficult decisions" or "clearing up the  economic mess left by Labour"
      12.  a fine of £100 every time anyone  says "Absolutely" when they mean "Yes" on Radio 4.

I suspect that few asked to pay any of these would find it all that difficult

 Given the current publicity surrounding the findings of the French economist Thomas Picketty that, since the return to capital exceeds the rate of growth, capital accumulation is a major cause of increased inequality, the taxes on capital , marked *,  would be particularly welcome.

And since land value taxation (which we called site value rating in my early campaigning days) has been on the Liberal/Liberal Democrat books for over a century, why aren't we shouting more about it, along with that timid step in the right direction, the mansion tax? 

Unemployed people*

In a recent interview Danny Alexander, Liberal Democrat number two in the Treasury, claimed:

"The plan that we're putting in place to sort out the economy bears as much my stamp as it does George Osborne's."

 Official coalition perception management has it that the economy is bouncing back, employment is at its highest level ever and unemployment is falling.  I think even Daily Mail readers must take this Panglossian interpretation with a pinch of salt.

According to figures produced by UNISON (Kirklees Bulletin 1 - 4th April, 2014)

• 80% of new jobs created in Britain last year were on zero-hours contracts
• of the alleged 1 million new private sector jobs, 400 000 are self-employed
• of the 1 million private sector jobs created since 2010, 200 000 result from the re-classification  of jobs in FE/6th Form Colleges
• 2.5 million people remain unemployed
• of the 2.5 million, one million are under 25 (one in five of the age group)

And all of this to protect us from the fabricated fear of the wrath of the markets and Osborne's number one priority, the retention of our AAA rating, (lost of course last year, so carefully written out of the record  by the Tory PR machine)

Even if UNISON has exaggerated the figures, and I have no reason to believe they have, very many families, including those in the comfortable middle,  must be affected by the above, particularly the horrifying numbers of young people unable to find work. 

 Rather than claim shared ownership of Osborne's economic policies, Liberal Democrats should  point out that  the Tories  have 305 MPs and we have only 57 so, although we can't do much to stop them, our own priorities, as heirs of Keynes and Beveridge,  would have been and are very different.

We should also point out that such signs of recovery as there are are probably due to the increase in infrastructure investment urged by Vince Cable rather than Osborne's Plan A, which was effectively abandoned in 2012.

*  I was once advised, and have advised many students, that economists should as far as possible  refer to "unemployed people"  rather than the abstract "unemployment,"  just as a reminder that what we're talking about is real people's lives, hopes, relationships, health and sense of purpose, and not just a statistic.

Not a Christian country: rather a Christian heritage.

The strident insistence, by David Cameron and others, that we are a Christian country, is both inaccurate and divisive.  What can't be denied, however, is that we are a nation with an overwhelmingly Christian heritage, and I'm pretty sure that the various groups who are not Christians but share the heritage are quite happy to accommodate to this.

From pre-Christian times there have been pagans, druids, animists, agnostics, atheists and maybe others outside my knowledge.  I believe there have been Jews settled here, with varying degrees of comfort, from about the 11th Century, followed by Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims and, again, maybe others, and not necessarily in that order.

One of the virtues which we claim as British  is tolerance and we should be able not just to accommodate people of other faiths but welcome them.  But  that does not mean  we should turn our backs on our predominantly Christian heritage, nor, I suspect, do most of the groups want us or expect us to.  Our pattern of holidays should continue to follow the Christian calendar: Christmas, Easter, and what about bringing back Whitsuntide and perhaps reviving Lady Day and Michaelmas?  Our splendid cathedrals, ancient  parish churches and such graveyards as are still well kept  are parts of our heritage which should be preserved with government support, not just as tourist attractions but as sources of inspiration to ourselves and our children.

Having worked abroad for a good part of my life I have been surprised and gratified by the number of Christian denominations which have originated in England and spread to so may other parts of the world.  Along with the Anglicans, the Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, the Society of Friends (Quakers), Methodists, the Salvation Army all have their origins in Britain and now serve and inspire in may parts of the world.  At some time in our past we seem to have had a spiritual gift.

Yes, I know we are not the only ones.  The French protestant church I attended was Calvinist (origins in Geneva), though its building was a former Anglican church,  and the dominant church in one part of Papua New Guinea where I worked was Lutheran (German, of course).  But when I attended their services I found some of the liturgy strangely familiar:  We thine unworthy servants do give thee most humble and hearty thanks for all thy goodness and loving kindness. . . Oh yes, said the American  Pastor, we make considerable use of the Book of Common Prayer.

So well done Cranmer et al, and I'm sure the adherents of other faiths  will not begrudge our efforts to keep our flame alive, as we in our turn encourage theirs.

Evanagelical Cameron on the wrong path

In the 1990s I used to lead walking tours in the beauty spots of Britain for a company, now sadly defunct, called English Wanderer. Many of our group members were from abroad and one very personable young man from the Low Countries, Belgium I think, explained to us that he was a teacher of non-confessional ethics.  In his country schools each had a "slot" when the various priests, ministers, imams and rabbis came in to give religious instruction to their flocks.  His job was to teach ethics to those pupils who had, or whose parents had, no attachment to any religious group.

One of his approaches was to ask his pupils to invent a game, or take an established one such as football, devise or describe the rules, and from there discus  why there were rules, their purpose, how the players should treat each other, the role of the referee and linesmen etc., and how to deal with the players who infringed the rules.  From this they would then extrapolate to the rules necessary for a functioning society.  I'm sure he had many more imaginative ways of introducing and developing the subject but that's the one I remember.

David Cameron claims to be evangelical about the Christina faith because of the role it plays in "helping people to have a moral code."  For those who retain their faith I'm sure it does, but since the vast majority appear to abandon their belief in a supernatural being etc at around the time they stop believing in Santa Clause*,  if our morality is based on prescriptions  form "outside," along with consequences in an afterlife, then out goes the basis for our morality.

Whilst conscious of the massive historic contribution the churches have made to the development of education in this and other countries, I think the time has now come, in the UK at least, to abandon both government support for faith schools and religious instruction in any school.  The replacement of the latter should be courses in non-confessional ethics, which should give a more permanent and deep rooted basis for how we should behave to one-another and our environment.

A Non-confessional ethics course can be found at:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CD0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eursc.eu%2Ffichiers%2Fcontenu_fichiers1%2F957%2F1998-D-22-en-2.pdf&ei=v7NTU6JE5KXQBYnDgdgC&usg=AFQjCNHQqCXVoMRRWDQSZCkupKXdXGzz_w&sig2=e8LuQUOzavRRXB9WpRhnUg&bvm=bv.65058239,d.d2k

Unfortunately it has the tag of "European" attached to it, so it may not appeal to UKIP or hard-line Tories.

*  Strangely they seem to retain their belief  in astrology.  An editor of one of the newspapers involved in the phone hacking trials said recently that he paid the astrologer more than the reporter who allegedly hacked the phones.  It would also be interesting to know how and why so many young British Muslims appear to retain their faith, mostly with good consequences, but some, with tragic ones.