Cherie Booth's Commission on English Prisons Today has come riding to the rescue of England's fit-to-burst places of correction. A shame it's not clear whether the politicians are listening.

By Alex Stevenson

Yesterday's report is the result of two years' hard labour (pardon the pun. Sorry, pardon that pun too). It proposes a radical reduction in the number of prison places and the closure of several prison establishments, shifting the emphasis to local preventive measures.

Is this so radical? Its commissioners think not. "It's perfectly possible to have less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prison," chairman Professor David Wilson explained at today's report launch.

Accepting that's the case is actually quite easy to do. Crime levels have declined by 43 per cent, Ms Booth, claims, but prison numbers have shot up. Before the sudden rise in the prison population in 1993 there were only 42,000 inmates. Now we're close to double that level. Something's got to give.

For

The stalking spectre of black-hearted deceit should have hung heavily over this week's prime minister's questions. Instead, Gordon Brown's fumble brought the House down.

By Alex Stevenson

All the ingredients were there. In the build-up we'd seen David Cameron claim there was a "thread of dishonesty" running through the government. Then Peter Mandelson came out fighting this morning, accusing George Osborne of a "deliberate untruth". This PMQs was always going to be about one thing - who can be believed on public spending.

That's where the statistics come in. Having slain the capital spending dragon last week, Brown-killer Cameron moved on to bigger, brighter things - total spending.
We were just getting started when the disaster struck. Brown, unthinking perhaps, boasted of a "zero per cent rise in 2013".

For the briefest of moments the entire Commons froze. In cartoon-mode Wile E. Coyote Brown looks at the camera, lips trembling and eyes bulging, as he realises he's just walked off a

The respected IPPR think tank has published a report on Britain's defence status in a volatile geo-political climate.

By Alex Stevenson

Focusing on Trident's future merely scratches the surface of the commission on national security's final report. It promises something much grander: a fundamental revision of the world order, and Britain's place in it.

At the heart of the assumptions in this report, hashed out across two painstaking years, is a pragmatism offering a radical reassessment of our defence priorities for the 21st century.

Its vision is of a nation threatened as much as by climate change as it is by armies. Nuclear proliferation and the perils of international terrorism loom as large as 20th century atomic armageddon. Swine flu and cybercrime offer threats as intangible as the guns of the last 100 years were brutally real.

There are ways and means of addressing these shifts, of course. The government's updated national security strategy, announced last week, is testament to

We're in such a rush to pass the parliamentary standards bill that it hasn't received the scrutiny it deserves. But there are some disturbing and unhelpful clauses in this law.

By Ian Dunt

As any legal experts will tell you, rushed legislation is bad legislation. And the parliamentary standards bill, which will be voted on tomorrow, is definitely rushed legislation. Even by the modern standards of parliament and the media, it has received precious little scrutiny. That's a shame, because it contains some little nuggets which further undermine Britain's democratic credentials.

Firstly, it introduces new laws that are entirely unnecessary, and secondly it fundamentally undermines the constitutional principle which frees parliament from Britain's oppressive and undemocratic libel laws. The first is pitiful, the second is dangerous.

A new offence will be made of fiddling expenses. The bill reads: "A member of the House of Commons commits an offence if the member-

(a) makes a claim under

Kettling came under sustained criticism from MPs today, after its use by police during the G20 protests prompted outrage. But can MPs really force the police to change?

By Ian Dunt

'Kettling', the practice where crowds are detained in a confined area for a sustained period of time in order to prevent public disorder, is not a new tactic. It has been around since ACPO manuals began and it's an established method used by police for a long time now.

A legal case against it began after its use around Oxford Circus during the May Day protests of 2001. Lois Austin found herself trapped by police for hours, and began a fierce legal battle against the method, which is currently making its way to the European Court of Human Rights.

The House of Lords, for their part, have already ruled on the issue. Peers found it to be legal, but only in very strict circumstances: the cordon has to be necessary for purely crowd control purposes and to protect people and property from injury, many of the people

The debate over animal welfare is misguided. Where human need clashes with animal rights, humans must take precedence.

This week MEPs in the European parliament voted to allow the continued slaughter of animals under Muslim and Jewish practises - called halal and shechita respectively.

There is an animal welfare argument in all this. Religious commentators say the more traditional techniques used by their respective faith are actually more humane than the mass-production methods used across Britain. Animal rights activists cite the lack of a stun gun in the process, which instantly makes the animal unconscious before slaughter.

Both these stances leave me distinctly unmoved. I remain entirely indifferent to the suffering of animals as a political issue. That's not to advocate cruelty. I would, of course, like all animals to be killed as humanely as scientifically possible. They should never undergo any further suffering than that necessary to support human needs. But when it comes to

Imagine a relative of yours turns 16. Your cousin, or niece, or sister perhaps. Everyone she knows will be telling her all the things she can now do. She can get married; drive; join the army; have sex; and, alas, be taxed. But she can't vote.

By Alex Stevenson

Votes at 16 is a campaigning coalition of organisations seeking to lower the voting age. "At 16, people become adults and take control of their own futures - so why can't we have the basic right of all adult citizens of a say in how the country is run?" one of its publicity leaflets asks.

"Stopping 16- and 17-year-olds from voting and having the chance to be heard sends a signal to them and to society, especially politicians, that our views aren't valid and that we aren't real citizens."

Unfortunately this argument has been rejected by the Electoral Commission, which investigated the issue in 2004. It found "insufficient justification for a change" and its survey research found two-thirds of the public backed the status quo.

British primary school children are becoming increasingly sexualised, while our over-emotional response to paedophilia grows by the day. When did we get so confused?

By Ian Dunt

Ofsted issued a warning today about the level of sexualisation among primary school children. It found recently suspended pupils as young as four were guilty of touching other children inappropriately and using sexually graphic language.

The watchdog's concerns are entirely justified, but there is a certain irony to the fact they were reported on the same day Rebecca Wade was promoted to the head of News International from her former position as editor of the Sun. Wade's career hit its first political storm in 2001, when, as editor of the News of the World, she named and shamed convicted paedophiles, resulting in mob attacks and the hospitalisation of a paediatrician. The chief constable of Gloucestershire called it "grossly irresponsible journalism" - which is exactly what it was - but she earned herself