The appalling overcrowding in British jails is old news. So, what prompted John Reid to "tackle" it all of a sudden? Quite simply, the fear of appearing "soft on crime". This would have been bad for this self-styled "tough new guy on the block" and his hopes to slip into Blair's shoes!

Rather than taking the risk of generating a tabloid campaign against the early release of minor offenders - the usual way for the system to deal with its crises - Reid plans "selective transfers" to "open" prisons and police cells. In a new bid to woo xenophobic prejudices, he also floated the idea of deporting "foreign" prisoners. Never mind that in addition to inflicting a second sentence on foreign offenders, this would be likely to attract retaliatory measures from other countries. And there may well be far more British prisoners in other parts of the world than the 10,000 foreigners in British jails!

The prison population increased by 32% since Labour came to power. But Reid was careful not to mention the real cause for overcrowding.

Is it due to increased criminal activity? No. The number declared guilty by the courts remained the same. What has increased is only the number of prison sentences and their length - including for the most petty offences. So Britain's prison population is now Europe's largest!

Has this sentencing frenzy reduced crime in Britain? No. Nor is there any indication that such methods have ever worked anywhere. The US model, the best thing since sliced bread according to Blair and Reid, proves the opposite: the US has the world's largest prison population in relative terms and one of the highest criminality rates.

If prisons are so overcrowded, it is thanks to the demagogical calls for more prison sentences made by ministers like Reid. If over 5% of prisoners are mentally ill or disabled, it is because so many NHS mental hospitals have been closed down. If more drug addicts come out of jail than go into them - the main cause behind re-offending - it is because there is no funding for drug clinics, inside or outside jails.

The prison system is but a faithful reflection of society - a society in which the share of the majority is being increasingly eroded by the rich and powerful minority for its own benefit.

The recent squabble between government ministers over the Islamic dress code for women, has nothing to do with the interests of the women concerned. It is all to do with the rivalries between Labour grandees in the run-up to the party's leadership contest. Having implemented the same policies for nearly a decade, the rivals are keen to prove that they do have differences, after all!

However, it is one thing for politicians, or whoever else, to have an opinion on religion and the importance it should have in social life - something perfectly legitimate. But it is quite another for the same people to dictate to women how they should dress in order to make themselves more "acceptable" to British society.

As if Muslim women had to make themselves "acceptable"! What makes any of us "acceptable" to society, is what we contribute to it. Straw's "contribution" has been to preside over the invasion of Iraq, which fuelled religious fundamentalism and where British-sponsored militias around Basra even enforced the wearing of the veil by women! He is the last person to offer such "advice"! And his pandering to racism, under the hypocritical pretext of fighting it, is abject!

But the motivations of the "opposite side" are just as objectionable. Isn't it ironical to see Ruth Kelly, a member of a Catholic free-masonry, claiming to defend Muslim women's "personal choice"? Has she ever defended the "personal choice" of the poor kids who have to go through the Christian brain-washing imposed on them by so many schools, thanks to Blair's bigoted policies?

Because this is the real issue, and the only one which no-one in this politicians' squabble has dared to raise. All religions are oppressive, particularly against women. In the name of "multi-culturalism", Labour relied on reactionary "community leaders", many of them religious, to police ethnic minorities. The day-to-day pressure of relatives and neighbours has increased and made it more difficult to avoid conforming to customs, especially for women and youth who are not in work. For them, there is no "personal choice". In fact, there is no choice at all.

However, they could have a choice - not thanks to the politicking of ministers, but if the working class movement remembered at last that this form of solidarity is one of its basic tasks.