Prisoners" votes: Ballot and chain THE vexed issue of voting rights for prisoners combines two of the Conservative Party's main preoccupations: penal policy and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Only the wrangles over the deportation of terrorists to insalubrious places, in which the ECHR is also involved, rival its potential for double demagoguery. This week David Cameron succumbed to temptation and took another whack at both prisoners and the court. The latest bout of a long struggle between successive British administrations and European judges ended on May 22nd. As part of a ruling on a similar Italian case, the court upheld a 2005 judgment in a case brought by a British man convicted of killing his landlady with an axe. That found that Britain's ban on virtually all prisoners voting violated the right to free elections enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. This time the court gave ministers six months to bring forward remedial proposals. On May 23rd Mr Cameron told Parliament that he intended to stand up to the "foreign court" and enforce the will of the House of Commons, which last year voted overwhelmingly to keep the current ban. He thus ingratiated himself with both Tory backbenchers and the tabloid press, much of which was luridly livid about the court's stance: "Contempt for Our Democracy" screamed the front page of the Daily Mail. In fairness to Mr Cameron, he has taken a consistent view on this question. This time, however, with little room left for stalling, it may have a price. Precisely what the government's next move will be is unclear; it will probably argue that the mood of Parliament makes compliance impossible. But it could face a hefty compensation bill (around 2,500 prisoners have filed complaints about voting with the court) which it might refuse to pay. Expulsion from the Council of Europe, the body to which signatories of the convention belong, seems unlikely. Dominic Raab, a Tory MP who argues the convention was not intended to guarantee votes for everyone, predicts "zero practical consequences" should the government stonewall. Yet at the least Britain's recalcitrance may give heart to less civilised countries, such as Russia, which are signatories to the convention but routinely flout it. And a compromise is available. The court ruled only that a "general, automatic and indiscriminate" ban on prisoners" voting violated the convention. States have leeway to decide how to implement the rules: ministers could stipulate a tariff above which prisoners forfeit voting rights, or allow judges to remove them as part of their sentences. Those methods are commonly used in other countries and were desultorily considered by the previous, Labour, government. A brave prime minister would revive them. "Those who break the law shouldn't make the law," the slogan of those opposed to change, rhymes but makes little sense. The ban is an anachronism: it dates back to the days before universal suffrage, when felons forfeited their property, ownership of which was a condition for voting. Plainly prisoners are and should be deprived of some rights while inside. But it is not clear why the right to vote, which may bring some benefit in terms of rehabilitation, should be one of them.