However, leaving aside the arguments for or against, what really has amazed me is that despite the unanimous ruling of the judges at the ECHR, which held that our Government is in breach of human rights, Tony Blair has, quite cynically (not to say desperately), appealed against the decision to the Grand Jury (and few people that I know of have even heard of this body). So much then for respecting human rights!

The ECHR reached its decision after much deliberation and consideration of the arguments put forward by other States when enfranchising their own prisoners (notably, in Canada). Voting by sentenced prisoners works successfully in many countries around the world, inclusing South Africa, Canada, Australia & New Zealand. Almost all of our European neighbours have partial or no restrictions on voting \x96 without detrimental social effects. The UK is one of only nine Council of Europe countries to automatically disenfranchise sentenced prisoners, the others being: Armenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Romania and Russia.

A strange choice of bed-fellows Mr Blair!

In any democracy, the right to vote is a personal right, as a member of the society; that translates to a *responsibility* to vote. The word "right" is not a right as in "priviledge.

You do not have the priviledge of voting. You have the responsibility of voting. You have an innate right, as a member of this society, and that infers a difficulty of removal, and a responsibility for use - much like Americans’ rights of life, liberty, and happiness, enshrined in their Bill of Rights in the ten first articles of the Constituion, grant them inalienable rights.

Those right can be taken away by the state, under due process, in the same way your rights to liberty can. I have to honestly say that I don’t see difficulty with that; your right to vote becomes replaced by your right to due process and is subsumed. So long as justice is done in a fair and balanced manner, then those rights - your right to liberty, and your right to take part in society as a free man - are replaced by your rights to a fair and just trial and due process.

When a man commits a crime, he potentially loses his right to his freedom. Full stop! In a civilised society, he must lose nothing more.

If the argument is that the votes of 69,000 inmates - around 6,000 would be unable to vote due to their age or infirmity - would hardly sway the shape of a future government, why are they resistant to change? What have they got to lose ….. other than the votes of The Daily Mail-icious reader?

Will this be yet another humiliating defeat for the government when they are finally dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Court of Human Rights? Let’s hope that common sense prevails before that happens.

In terms of votes, the effect on election outcomes is very minimal. I’m sure the Government’s majority is safe for the moment.

However, voting rights would make a huge difference to the prison population. It would make ministers much more accountable for what goes on in prisons - a service that lurches silently and relentlessly from one crisis to another.

There are 2 suicides a week in prison, high rates of self-harm and drug use, unskilled staff and patchy rehabilitation. If these statistics of failure were reported in any other public service, there would be an outcry. But, politicians will find the motivation to change the status quo when no votes are at stake.

Issues only count when votes count on it.

Think of voting rights as performance related pay for the Prison’s Minister. I think you would find things change for the better.

Again it has the advantage of adjustable "weight". Could be very interesting to see if there are any specific trends in the voting.

There may be an issue of intimidation however, either by guards or inmates.

As another slightly mad possibility, there could be prison constituencies, like the old university constituencies. Have (say) two MPs for the whole prisons system. Campaigning would be a bit of a nightmare, though.