Do you want to discuss boring politics? (109 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

I don't think there is anything in sentencing guidelines that considers prison capacity?

Not officially, no. But it’s on the mind of judges when they choose where in the range and the sentencing council when they decide. I mean if we’ve only got a 100 places we can only send the 100 worst criminals to jail.

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

Not officially, no. But it’s on the mind of judges when they choose where in the range and the sentencing council when they decide. I mean if we’ve only got a 100 places we can only send the 100 worst criminals to jail.

OK, what's Labour's aim here? Commitment to more prison places?

 

[shmmeee]

OK, what's Labour's aim here? Commitment to more prison places?

It should be really. Any work on root causes will take a while to filter through and we’ve been short for decades.

 

[JAM See]

OK, what's Labour's aim here? Commitment to more prison places?

Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime.

Worked last time.

 

[skybluetony176]

Sentencing guidelines are not a symptom of the broken criminal justice system though are they

Aren’t they? You’re going to have to explain that one to me.

 

[skybluetony176]

I don't think there is anything in sentencing guidelines that considers prison capacity?

Judges and magistrates are allowed to suspend short sentences based on overcrowding in prisons. The get out being that there will be additional punishment placed on an offender who is prisoned in an over crowded, under resourced prison than there would be in a well resourced prison operating within the capacity it was designed to.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Aren’t they? You’re going to have to explain that one to me.

Are you trying to argue that a functioning criminal justice system would not have sentencing guidelines?

 

[skybluetony176]

Are you trying to argue that a functioning criminal justice system would not have sentencing guidelines?

No. Sentencing guidelines are clearly part of a functioning criminal justice system. I’m saying that the remit of sentencing guidelines can be and are being determined by a failing criminal justice system and more. We have prisons full of people with mental health issues who were coping in society pre austerity because they had support systems in place which helped them with numerous mental health issues but addiction issues especially and assisted them in avoiding criminal behaviour and ending up in prison. In the meantime we have petty criminals getting suspended sentences whereas normally they would have gone into prison because the prisons are full. The NHS is also having to pick up the slack.

 

[fernandopartridge]

No. Sentencing guidelines are clearly part of a functioning criminal justice system. I’m saying that the remit of sentencing guidelines can be and are being determined by a failing criminal justice system and more. We have prisons full of people with mental health issues who were coping in society pre austerity because they had support systems in place which helped them with numerous mental health issues but addiction issues especially and assisted them in avoiding criminal behaviour and ending up in prison. In the meantime we have petty criminals getting suspended sentences whereas normally they would have gone into prison because the prisons are full. The NHS is also having to pick up the slack.

I agree with most of what you've said tbqh - i don't think "build more prisons" is the answer

 

[skybluetony176]

I agree with most of what you've said tbqh - i don't think "build more prisons" is the answer

Neither do I. The problems in the prisons is very clearly linked to austerity. It’s going to take at least 2 decades to get back to where we were pre austerity. The root of many issues in the prison system and NHS are linked to defunding social care in the community, from overcrowded prisons to bed blocking because there isn’t enough support in the community for people to go home, so they stay in hospitals.

 

[skybluetony176]

Changing the subject slightly this was a great interview.

'I am calling her rhetoric racist!': Tory Peer condemns Home Secretary Suella Braverman

Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, former co-chairwoman of the Conservative party has criticised Ms Braverman branding her a 'Trump tribute act'.

www.lbc.co.uk

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

They are a bit. There’s a fair amount of evidence lack of prison space is leading to lighter sentences.

Sentences have increased in length and there are more prisoners being sentenced to custody but you are right

 

[skybluetony176]

Still don’t understand how she was ever let near enough to No.10 that she ever stood a chance of getting in, let alone got in.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Home Secretary showing tolerance and good judgement once again.

 

[SBT]

The pub landlord sounds like a dribbling nutter. Quite why Braverman’s people decided to throw their lot in with him, I do not know.

 

[skybluetony176]

The pub landlord sounds like a dribbling nutter. Quite why Braverman’s people decided to throw their lot in with him, I do not know.

Birds of a feather and all that.

 

[clint van damme]

The pub landlord sounds like a dribbling nutter. Quite why Braverman’s people decided to throw their lot in with him, I do not know.

Apparently the c**t spends most of the year in Turkey! Not an immigrant though, ex pat.......

 

[rondog1973]

Apparently the c**t spends most of the year in Turkey! Not an immigrant though, ex pat.......

Islamaphobe to boot!

 

[Boosh]

Full interview is glorious

 

[MusicDating]

The pub landlord sounds like a dribbling nutter. Quite why Braverman’s people decided to throw their lot in with him, I do not know.

Some great replies on Twitter following that ahem slightly dubious excuse...

 

[Sick Boy]

Some great replies on Twitter following that ahem slightly dubious excuse...

She looks perfectly normal.

 

[skybluetony176]

 

[Grendel]

Soon we will see another poster saying Rishi Sunak does not send Gollywog owners to jail. Labour will prosecute and imprison every golly owner. Good Golly.

 

[fernandopartridge]

It'll be so much better under Labour

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It'll be so much better under Labour

At times it sounds like you'd be almost gleeful if they didn't win the next election, epitomising the saying that we get so many right-wing governments because the left is too busy fighting itself.

 

[Ian1779]

At times it sounds like you'd be almost gleeful if they didn't win the next election, epitomising the saying that we get so many right-wing governments because the left is too busy fighting itself.

You think we should celebrate the bull shit he has spouted out here like he’s some kind of antidote to the Tory mess?

 

[fernandopartridge]

At times it sounds like you'd be almost gleeful if they didn't win the next election, epitomising the saying that we get so many right-wing governments because the left is too busy fighting itself.

No, I find it utterly depressing that there is essentially not a hair's breadth between their positions on the things that matter to me. We get right wing governments because we put up with nonsense like this.

 

[skybluetony176]

With regards to NHS pay it’s pretty clear what either this government or the next should do. 1) restore their pay, 2) link it to MP’s pay so basically every time that MP’s vote themselves a pay rise NHS staff get the same percentage pay rise. They’re all civil servants at the end of the day and personally I value NHS staff more than I value politicians so it’s only fair and right that they get treated at least as equally as MP’s when it comes to pay rises. No MP currently has the right to go out and take the moral high ground on wages when their pay has increased 25% in the same period. MP’s were earning £65,738.00 a year in 2010, they now about to earn £86,584.00 a year. Not including their second “jobs”, consultancy fees, freebie’s, after dinner speaking fees, expenses and TV income of course. Not that NHS workers get spare time enough to take on a second job etc etc.

On that basis Starmer has got this wrong and I’m not sure why he’s so willingly got this wrong because public opinion does seem to be behind NHS workers and against the government’s stance.

 

[fernandopartridge]

With regards to NHS pay it’s pretty clear what either this government or the next should do. 1) restore their pay, 2) link it to MP’s pay so basically every time that MP’s vote themselves a pay rise NHS staff get the same percentage pay rise. They’re all civil servants at the end of the day and personally I value NHS staff more than I value politicians so it’s only fair and right that they get treated at least as equally as MP’s when it comes to pay rises. No MP currently has the right to go out and take the moral high ground on wages when their pay has increased 25% in the same period. MP’s were earning £65,738.00 a year in 2010, they now about to earn £86,584.00 a year. Not including their second “jobs”, consultancy fees, freebie’s, after dinner speaking fees, expenses and TV income of course. Not that NHS workers get spare time enough to take on a second job etc etc.

On that basis Starmer has got this wrong and I’m not sure why he’s so willingly got this wrong because public opinion does seem to be behind NHS workers and against the government’s stance.

TBF MP wages have not kept pace with inflation either, using RPI as the measure they're way below what they should be. I'd be reluctant to tie pay rises to something in the gift of MPs to manipulate, it should be against one of the recognised inflation measures (albeit RPI isn't properly recognised any more). Post 2010 austerity has not been good for anybody.

That said, MPs have the benefit of having all of their work related expenses and even accommodation paid for, so difficult to compare:

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

With regards to NHS pay it’s pretty clear what either this government or the next should do. 1) restore their pay, 2) link it to MP’s pay so basically every time that MP’s vote themselves a pay rise NHS staff get the same percentage pay rise. They’re all civil servants at the end of the day and personally I value NHS staff more than I value politicians so it’s only fair and right that they get treated at least as equally as MP’s when it comes to pay rises. No MP currently has the right to go out and take the moral high ground on wages when their pay has increased 25% in the same period. MP’s were earning £65,738.00 a year in 2010, they now about to earn £86,584.00 a year. Not including their second “jobs”, consultancy fees, freebie’s, after dinner speaking fees, expenses and TV income of course. Not that NHS workers get spare time enough to take on a second job etc etc.

On that basis Starmer has got this wrong and I’m not sure why he’s so willingly got this wrong because public opinion does seem to be behind NHS workers and against the government’s stance.

I've said before I'd say MP's pay rises should be capped at the lowest pay rise throughout the public sector.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I've said before I'd say MP's pay rises should be capped at the lowest pay rise throughout the public sector.

Not a good idea is it?

 

[Grendel]

I've said before I'd say MP's pay rises should be capped at the lowest pay rise throughout the public sector.

More Jacob Rees Moggs and Jeremy hunts then

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I've said before I'd say MP's pay rises should be capped at the lowest pay rise throughout the public sector.

No we should just pay those professions properly in the first place and make a meaningful effort to improve their working conditions.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

No, I find it utterly depressing that there is essentially not a hair's breadth between their positions on the things that matter to me. We get right wing governments because we put up with nonsense like this.

But we have to face the fact that the only time we've had a Labour/non right wing government in my lifetime is when it moved more to the right. Would you say that that government, even though not ideologically what we'd want, was still massively different to what we've seen from the Tories?

Whether we like it or not, there are far too many people that have been indoctrinated into right-wing thinking and are automatically sceptical when you say things like socialism, even if it would be better for them.

Corbyn had two elections and lost both. I think the Tories would feel far more confident of winning the next one, even despite the shitshow, if he were still in charge because they know they can just press those buttons.

I've said before that I think a lot of the recent Labour leaders have been let down by advisors trying to make them appeal to as many people as possible, and thus come across as disingenuous. At this point the Tories are showing their incompetence and are losing themselves the next election. Rocking the boat is only likely to make it less likely Labour will win. Right now, the objective is to make sure they get into power, then they can start making changes. Acting like a left wing firebrand is not going to help achieve that aim.

Of course he can't win - go left wing and Tories push that button and say he's a threat to the economy or stay more to the centre and get accused of just being a Tory in disguise. I'm sure the Tories love hearing people say they think Starmer is little different to them so why vote for him. They know he'd be different.

 

[shmmeee]

Also you have to tack right socially for voters. And you have to do it even more if you’re left wing to cut through. Anyone who thinks the next Parliament is identical in outcome regardless of party is mental.