Labour's knife crime policy looking stupider by the hour #sp11

I've often said that the worst thing that could happen in this election was for Richard Baker, whose preferred policy making procedure appears to be by jerking his knee in response to tabloid headlines, to end up as Cabinet Secretary for Justice, implementing draconian yet ineffective measures. 

The thought of Labour's policy on knife crime, of sending anyone caught with a knife to prison for six months is ill thought through.  Let's make no bones about it, folk shouldn't be wandering around carrying knives, but the way to deal with it isn't to send people to prison when the almost certainty is that they'll come out and do the same thing all over again. 

There might be a case for drastic action if knife crime was going up - but it's fallen by more than a third due to initiatives like No Knives, Better Lives. There are still too many stabbings and deaths, and that has to be stopped. However, I'd rather see money being put into making sure these kids never get into the situation in the first place, on positive measures, rather than locking up thousands of young people every year.

Labour themselves don't seem to have much of a clue about how many extra prisoners their plans would create. There were 3194 convictions in 2009-10 for carrying a knife. Yet Iain Gray said on The Politics Show on Sunday that they'd only need 500 extra prison places. How does that compute?  Do they really think that they are so persuasive that 84% of knife wielding thugs are just going to stop like that? Of course, Andy Kerr said around the same time that the figure was 1000, so they haven't a clue themselves.  In any event, our prisons are packed to capacity anyway. Where exactly are we going to put all these people?

If we have proven, evidence based methods of reducing knife crime, are we not better using them than another Labour attempt at a quick fix? Remember these are the people who came up with ID cards which were vastly expensive and wouldn't have prevented any of the terrorist atrocities claimed.

And what do people in the know think about Labour's policy. Well, the assistant secretary of the Prison Officers' Association thinks it could compromise safety for both officers and prisoners and that it's just "not credible."

And then the Police Federation don't seem terribly impressed. General Secretary Calum Steele said:

"As a manifesto proposal it is understandable why the pledge is considered as attractive. Although unconvinced by the reality, only politicians will know if it's truly affordable and deliverable in practice."

It seemed strange to see Iain Gray so clearly on the ropes on one of his flagship policies the other day. If he can't even research the implications properly of his own stuff, how can he be expected to competently take decisions on a daily basis that affect us all?


This is all about Labour being seen to be tough on crime and nothing to do with actual, practical reality.

Purvis' practical solutions for business illuminate economy debate

Here are three of the four particpants in the last of the four Scotland on Sunday debates which took place yesterday. John Swinney, whose elbow you can just see on the left,  Labour's Andy Kerr, Conservative Derek Brownlee and Liberal Democrat Jeremy Purvis lined up to quiz each other and take questions from the audience and online observers on the economy.

These debates have generally been useful. Held far out enough from the heat at the nucleus of the election campaign, they've been generally good humoured and good at highlighting the difference in approach between the parties. There was a bit of needle between Nicola Sturgeon and Jackie Baillie last week, and yesterday there was a whispered conversation between Andy Kerr and John Swinney after which both of them looked a bit grumpy, though.

The issue with them being so far out is that they are before the manifesto launches so parties are keeping a certain amount of their powder dry. They also don't have to answer any uncomfortable questions as to how much their plans are going to cost.

The debates were moderated by Kenny Farquharson, the editor of Scotland on Sunday, who did a really good job. He had enough needle to get them out of their comfort zones and just the right amount of menace to try to drag some skeletons out of their closets.

Like the others, yesterday's debate started with two minute opening statements, which is enough to give the highlights and not long enough for elaborate waffle. Then they each got to ask one question of each other. After that, questions from those watching both in the room and online were taken before a one minute closing statement.

Thanks to Andy Kerr's car breaking down, the thing started half an hour late. That might excuse what was a very poor performance from him. He spent his time slagging the SNP, most viciously on the cancellation of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link, which prompted the mutual grumpiness or saying not much. I must have misunderstood what he said about Labour's manifesto not being costed because there were plenty of organisations who would do it for them post publication. That attitude certainly seems typical of Labour - we've seen the financial mess they've left us to clear up at Westminster level and locally in places like Edinburgh and Fife. Bung it on the credit card and sort it out later seems to be their mantra. Lallands Peat Worrier, by the way, is wickedly and hilariously cruel about his performance, so go and have a look later.

I was quite surprised to see Tory Derek Brownlee readily agree that Scotland should be included in the consultation on Corporation Tax that the UK Government is having with Northern Ireland, saying that if these changes were possible in one part of the UK, it would be foolish to rule it out for others.

John Swinney was competent but uninspiring. He was lucky nobody reminded him, on a question about whether the "tartan tax" could be used to avoid cuts, that he was the one who had let it lapse without telling the Parliament.

I know Jeremy Purvis is one of mine, but I was really impressed with him yesterday. I was sitting there in the audience like a proud parent. Ok, so I'm not nearly old enough to be his mother but I did assess him on his candidate approval day in the run up to his election in 2003 and it do tend to beam with pride when any of my candidates do well in things, as a fair few have.

Out of all of them his language was clearest and his proposals most practical. He talked about preventing a power grab to the centre, instead providing joined up solutions at regional level. About regional development banks to give practical help to businesses. The reason for the change is simply the massive and unhelpful bureaucracy often faced by business. He illustrated his point with a real life example of a textile company passed from pillar to post round various quangos, none of which would give them the help that they actually needed. He talked about making sure Scotland had the infrastructure and things like broadband connectivity to boost business and growth and ultimately jobs.

What was interesting from him was an admission that the Council Tax is here to stay for this Parliament at least so it doesn't look like Local Income Tax will be in our manifesto this time. However he did say that we were bringing forward proposals to make the Council Tax system fairer and that its ultimate replacement would be fair and based on ability to pay.

Of the four debates so far, justice and health have been my favourites, but I guess that's not surprising as they're the subjects which interest me most. I'm going to try to go to a few more such events as the campaign hots up - if any one lets me and my serial tweeting habit in, of course.....