Skip to main content

Probation - the Devil's in the detail - like most things

According to the Independent a report later this month will
"question the ability of the Probation Service to protect the public from dangerous criminals"

In a sense this shows the way in which many issues cause a mass of column inches, but little is actually done to resolve the problems that are highlighted. The criminal justice system has so many errors in it that we should not be surprised when things go wrong. The government's solution with the police and Probation Service tends to focus on filling in forms rather than dealing with offenders. In the mean time rather than look from a whole system perspective and develop a plan that reduces criminality we end up with ideological battles over small parts of the system. In the mean time we have a system that actually acts to encourage criminality.

The important aspects of any system rest within the detail, but rarely is any proper attention given to the detail and hence little happens.

I have been spending some time looking at the failings of our current system of parliamentary scrutiny and concluded that much of this rests in the failure of ministerial responsibility. The principle that ministers tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to parliament has basically failed. Whether ministers actually know what the truth is is a question in doubt. They depend upon information from across the country much of which can be adjusted in various interesting ways. The end result is a bit of a shambles.

We see a similar issue in terms of the way in which media attention swings to an issue for just sufficient time for nothing to happen apart from spinning from a few ministers.

Two interesting tests of this are:

a) Jamie Oliver's School Meals debate. I am not aware of anything of substance that has changed as a result of that although I am sure that some superficial changes could be identified.

b) Live 8. Live 8 in my view was a major success because it reunited Pink Floyd. It also raised a lot of money. I am not sure what else it has done.

A lot of "Make Poverty History" grandstanding has ensued, but again I am not really sure what has changed of substance that affects people on the ground.

One area I will be campaigning over the next few months is to improve parliamentary scrutiny and ensure that ministers are held more accountable for their departments. I think I have worked out how to do this, but only time will tell.

Comments

Richard Allen said…
If I was you John I would be very wary about be so cynical about Live 8. Of course you are right that (the music aside) it had no real benefits but such a hard hearted view of things is surely unbecoming of a Lib Dem MP. Unless of course you are planning to outflank David Cameron's absurd tories on the right.
john said…
My view is that we need to work to eradicate poverty across the world. I do take the view that this involves having good systems of government and economic structures in other countries.

However, much that Live8 was a positive event, I do not think it helps to mislead people into thinking it was a key driver into any change or indeed that any substantial change has occurred.

Much of the proposals that were put forward prior to the suggestions of Live8 were the same as agreed after Live8.

Notwithstanding that, I have been a supporter of much of the principles behind "Make Poverty History".
Tristan said…
Indeed, there's a danger that events such as Live8 just lull people into a sense that they've done something and now the issue can be forgotten.

Whilst I share the aims of Make Poverty History (who wouldn't) I am also wary because there have been attempts by the anti-globalisation lobby to hijack it. These people are very dangerous because despite meaning well, they put the very processes which could eleviate poverty at risk through their dogmatic opposition to free trade.

Popular posts from this blog

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…