MPs vote to keep ban on prisoners voting

234 MPs vote to keep the ban, with just 22 opposed.

As expected, MPs have voted to keep the ban on prisoners voting by 234 votes to 22 – a majority of 212. The vote puts parliament on a collision course with the European Court of Human Rights, whose rulings Britain is bound by treaty to accept. Ministers appear to hope that the resounding vote will encourage the ECHR to reverse its judgment in favour of prisoner voting.

David Cameron, who memorably declared that the thought of giving prisoners the vote made him "physically ill", has simply said that the government will "sort this out one way or the other". Yet the Conservative leader faces two equally unpalatable choices. If he complies with the ECHR ruling, he will find himself at odds with his increasingly restive backbenchers. If he doesn't, the government could be forced to pay out large amounts in compensation to inmates.

In the meantime, here is the statement released by the shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, whom Mehdi has profiled in this week's magazine.

He said:

We have been very clear that it is not Labour policy to give prisoners the vote.

Despite several attempts to glean information from the Tory-led government by me, and the lively debate in the House today, they have yet to explain how they intend to satisfy the European Court of Human Rights ruling.

The government must, as a matter of urgency, bring forward its draft legislation so parliament and the public are clear about where it stands on this important issue.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The big problem for the NHS? Local government cuts

Even a U-Turn on planned cuts to the service itself will still leave the NHS under heavy pressure. 

38Degrees has uncovered a series of grisly plans for the NHS over the coming years. Among the highlights: severe cuts to frontline services at the Midland Metropolitan Hospital, including but limited to the closure of its Accident and Emergency department. Elsewhere, one of three hospitals in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are to be shuttered, while there will be cuts to acute services in Suffolk and North East Essex.

These cuts come despite an additional £8bn annual cash injection into the NHS, characterised as the bare minimum needed by Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England.

The cuts are outlined in draft sustainability and transformation plans (STP) that will be approved in October before kicking off a period of wider consultation.

The problem for the NHS is twofold: although its funding remains ringfenced, healthcare inflation means that in reality, the health service requires above-inflation increases to stand still. But the second, bigger problem aren’t cuts to the NHS but to the rest of government spending, particularly local government cuts.

That has seen more pressure on hospital beds as outpatients who require further non-emergency care have nowhere to go, increasing lifestyle problems as cash-strapped councils either close or increase prices at subsidised local authority gyms, build on green space to make the best out of Britain’s booming property market, and cut other corners to manage the growing backlog of devolved cuts.

All of which means even a bigger supply of cash for the NHS than the £8bn promised at the last election – even the bonanza pledged by Vote Leave in the referendum, in fact – will still find itself disappearing down the cracks left by cuts elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.