Increasing prison numbers is a sign of failure not success.

A person in a prison cell is like a car driver in an A&E bed, it means something has gone wrong earlier in the process. All that money spent on driver training, road signals and signage, crash barriers and air-bags all wasted because there he is lying all bandage up in traction.

If I said I wanted to see more people in bandages in A&E and that I'd be happy to see them come back again over and over you'd think I was mad.

You would ask me what all the money spent on preventing road accidents had achieved, you'd ask why I wasn't spending a bit more time, effort and money preventing people ending up in very expensive hospital beds after hurting themselves and others.

So why do we not ask the same about prisons?

Prison is unbelievably expensive, the cost of putting a teenager into Feltham for one month would pay for a year's worth of fees at a minor public school. An when nearly 80% re-offend within two years you have to ask if this really is a model we want to expand.

Wouldn't it be better to have fewer people committing crime? Wouldn't it be better heading upstream and sorting these people out while they are still a nuisance rather that a fully fledged criminal? Wouldn't it be better to make sure the people who are banged up at the moment don't re-offend when they get out?

Ken Clarke today outlined a different vision for the prison system and I have a lot of sympathy for his position. Prisons are an important part of the solution but they are not the whole solution, yes prisons work but they only work at being prisons. Engines work but without wheels, a gearbox, bodywork etc. you don't have a car."

And just in case you think that this is all a bunch of nice words that will never work have a look at this, it is working already.

Talking to the Taliban

I was waiting for the chorus of disapproval generated by General Richard's comments about starting talks with the Taliban, but the didn't come.

I would like to think that this wasn't just because everyone in the country, media included, was distracted by England's exit from the World Cup (which I haven't been able to bring myself to write about) but because people were being sensible and pragmatic about his comments.

When I heard the reporting of his comments I braced myself for the push-back from the media. Usually something along the lines of "never talk to terrorists" or something about not giving in to the bastards who have killed our brave boys, etc.

While I instinctively have a lot of sympathy with those sentiments the simple truth of warfare is that you can't kill them all.

War is about creating a set of circumstances or an environment where successful negotiations take place. Wars always end in negotiations! Sometimes those negotiations are very short and one sided others are unproductive marathon sessions but ultimately when the fighting stops (or in order to make it stop) you have to talk.

State of London Debate

The State of London Debate is being held in City Hall this evening. It is the event where the Mayor presents his annual report and an opportunity for Londoners to ask questions of the Mayor and his team.



This year the plan is to make the event digital and interactive (naturally) so you can follow the event online and a number of us will be twittering during the event.
You can download the Mayor's report here.

Some lose a little some lose a lot

As I predicted in the post below everyone is at lease a little worse off under this budget than they were before. The mix of proposals mean that the poorest are insulated from the bulk of reductions and will be about £200 a year worse off, the top 10% of earners will be on average £1,600 worse off.

In percentage of income the graph looks like this:

Most people will be about 1% of income worse off with the top 10% of earners seeing their net income drop by about 2% worse off.

After budgets the media normally look out for "winners and losers", the simple truth is that there aren't really any winners today, that is the financial legacy of the Blair and Brown governments.

The budget, everyone will be a little less well off

I was with friends for dinner at the weekend with a politically mixed group of friends, it is clear from the conversations around the table that everyone understands the need for the government to balance the books and reduce the deficit.

What is also clear is that no one seems to think that it will be them that will be effected in any significant way. The scale of the financial hole left to us by Brown is bigger than any a government has had to deal with in the past and the only way to sort it out is to make some serious changes to the way we deal with money. For serious changes read less money in the wallets of almost everyone in the country.

There is an argument about whether it should be through taxation or by spending reduction or both. I suspect it will be both and I suspect it will be more than most people suspect.

No one like taking bitter medicine but unless we want a bigger spoonful later we had better all get used to it.

London's response to the swine flu pandemic

This morning the London Assembly's Health & Public Services committee published our report into the capital's response to the flu pandemic.

For the most part the planning and execution went well but we did identify areas of improvement which will better prepare us for a more serious pandemic if it occurs in the future.

You download the report here.

Safer neighbourhood police team under investigation in Bromley

Last night I recieved a briefing from the police Borough Commander in Bromley about the investigation into members of the Mottingham and Chislehurst North team. Most of the details are in the public domain so I won't try to provide a commentary here and as I sit on the Professional Standards Cases Sub-committee, I may have to deal with this at some point in the future so I don't want to prejudice myself by commenting in detail.

Thankfully situations like this a rare in the Met but it is essential that they are dealt with quickly and professionally.

Ed Balls bullied at school, that explains a lot.

As the Mayor of London's former Youth Ambassador I take bullying at school seriously. The title of this post is not meant to be comic or facetious, I regard Ed Balls' disclosure to the Mirror as a real eye opener.

Playground bullying can have a profound effect on the individuals involved and can distort they way they interact with other people for much of their lives, particularly in stressful or confrontational situations. Luckily, most people don't suffer too badly and are able to move on.

I have often been surprised and disappointed by the way that Ed Balls deals with criticism or challenge, he deploys a relentlessly negative and aggressive style and seems unwilling or unable to concede that his opponent has any redeeming points. I have never dealt with him directly but I have heard too many people (from across the political divide) describe him as a bully to write it off as media speculation.

It has nothing to do with me but for what it's worth I think Labour have been led by a bully for far too long already.

P.S. Going through school with the surname Cleverly is no picnic

Sir Jock Stirrup isn't quitting early

The media is reporting that the Chief of the Defence Staff, the operational head of the armed forces, is stepping down early. The term "early" needs some context, it is only early if measured against his revised contractual end date but it is worth remembering that Sir Jock's term was extended by the the Labour government.

The BBC report suggested that Sir Jock was seen as being "close to Labour", from what I've heard from military friends of mine his extension was less about him and more about his most likely replacement at the time, Sir Richard Dannatt.

Sir Richard was highly critical of the Labour government and was the last person that they wanted as the head of the forces, Sir Jock's extension was an unprecedented and pretty blatant move to keep him out of the top job. Any surprise that after treatment like (and worse) that from Labour he chose to work with the Conservatives when he retired?

Labour leadership nominations fiasco

The Labour party leadership process has undermined all their arrogant posturing about equality and diversity. It has been a total embarrassment.

Up until the final hours of the process the only people nominated were three white, middle aged, Oxford graduates (all studied PPE), ex Labour staffers, ex Labour minister, girlfriend sharing, football team mates. They only had two Christian names and two surnames between the three of them.

Andy Burnham joined the race and opened it up to ex Cambridge grads too. Well done him!

Let's get this straight, I don't have a problem with white, Oxford grads getting on in life, it's the Labour party who corporately seem to have an issue with it. They are happy to "talk the talk" in a particularly patronising tone of voice, but when given the opportunity to "walk the walk" they fail, and fail spectacularly.

For me the most insulting element of this was the means by which Diane Abbott got onto the ballot paper. I have written in the past about by hatred of tokenism, it is clear that Labour felt that they needed some "diversity" on the ticket and so David Miliband stopped nominating himself and nominated Diane.

What message does that send?

It says "I don't think of you as a realistic threat, or I wouldn't have nominated you but we do need to add a little colour to the list to keep the minorities happy". It makes me sick.

I thought that Diane Abbott would have had more dignity than to accept this.

It will end in tears

Last week three people were arrested and one person was hospitalised after a mass water fight got out of control. I have two sons (aged 8 and nearly 6) and the one thing that I have learned is that good natured water fights always, ALWAYS, end in tears.

Now let's hope that anyone organising a running with scissors flash-mob take note.

Not enough women MPs

I was interested by the last item on the Today program on Radio 4 this morning a playwright Gillian Slovo and new Conservative MP Mary MacLeod were discussing the still small numbers of female MPs.

When asked why there are still so few women on the Conservative side of the house Mary replied that it was sexism in the selection committees. I was surprised and disappointed to hear her say that.

I'm not contending that there isn't any sexism at work in the committee stage of the selection process but it is not the only problem, I'm not yet convinced that it is the major problem. As far as I can see the number of women selected is roughly in proportion to the number on the candidate list, a major issue is how we get more women to put themselves forward to be MPs.

As for the selection of candidates to safe or highly winnable constituencies there is an understandable bias towards people who have fought a general election before or who have a long standing relationship with the party. This naturally disadvantages younger candidates or those who are not able to make the scarifies of a candidate over such an extended period of time. Mothers with young families are particularly disadvantaged by the demands for evening and weekend orientated campaigning.

We have got five years (hopefully) before the next general election, if we want more women MPs at that election we need to start increasing the number of women putting themselves forward. If we do that I am confident that the process, which is still heavily stacked up against women with young children, will change.

Democracy village, where were you in January?

I've just got back from a weekend camping with family and friends, it was lovely. I have spent many nights sleeping outdoors in the middle of winter and wouldn't subject my family to that experience.

This got me thinking, why has the "Democracy Village" only appeared since the beginning of May? Might it have something to do with the expected improvement in the weather? There are so many things to campaign about but none are so important that they need a camp in the middle of Winter, apparently.

I will lay my cards on the table, I think the "Democracy Village" is a load of crap. Firstly it isn't democratic, I don't remember voting for who does or does not get to camp in Parliament Square. Secondly, it isn't a village, where the hell is the pub, the post office or the duck pond?

The protesters may have some valid points to make, I wouldn't know, I stopped listening the moment they invaded the square. If you want to have a fun Summer under canvas get some tickets for a music festival and stop making a nuisance of yourselves.

Must watch video: Boris vs 2 Anonymous DJs - Is Fat Buy Slim a DJ?

Livingstone wants to be Mayor of London again

as reported here. And in other news the Pope is still Catholic.

The Gaza boat raid was a cock-up and Israel should apologise

I am a supporter of Israel and her right to defend herself from those countries and individuals who would rather she was destroyed and her people driven into the sea. But the raid on the "Free Gaza" ship was poorly planned and executed and lives were lost unnecessarily.

It is worth remembering that Israel has been surrounded throughout her existence by countries who have wanted to attack and destroy her. The Gaza Strip has been the launch point for many attacks and arms have been (and probably still are) smuggled to Gaza to be used to kill Israeli civilians, in this context the naval blockade is understandable.

The "Free Gaza" shipment wasn't just about getting aid to Gaza, that could have been achieved without trying to run the blockade, it was also about getting headlines. To that end a confrontation was almost inevitable and the IDF should have born that in mind during their planning.

From what I have seen, which like most people is far from the complete picture, the IDF acted too hastily, with a poorly thought through plan which was itself poorly executed. The mission started to fall apart as soon as the first commando set foot on deck. Confusion, darkness and violent crowds are not a good mix and once the first firearm was discharged the confusion was added to.

Some people have claimed that the IDF wanted to inflict casualties as part of the plan, I think this is rubbish, the first troops would not have come on board armed with paint-ball guns if that was the case. I believe the IDF's intentions were clear and reasonable, but the underestimated the threat and then over reacted to a botched plan.

Israel should not apologise for the blockade, they should not apologise for taking steps to defend themselves but they should apologise for allowing the situation to get out of control, letting it escalate and for causing the loss of life through a confrontation which could, and should, have been better handled.