Gordon Brown has reversed the Prisons Board's recommendation to raise prisoners' pay for the first time in ten years, from £4 to £5.50 a week. Yes, that's £4 a week, not a below-minimum-wage rate of £4 an hour.

The timing of the announcement - in local election week - was unfortunate. Particularly since some jails appear to have been pressured to override their own safety limits, to avoid the political embarrassment and cost of using police cells as overspill prison accommodation. Still, some forethought might have enabled a sensible reform to be introduced without adverse comment.

Nor was it helpful that news of the promised pay increase followed hot on the heels of uncorroborated claims made by a union official, probably in a jostle for future Prison Officers' Association leadership, that prisoners were enjoying a cushy life in jail. Misleading tabloid headlines were not the best way to present a balanced case for more support for hard-pressed prison officers as they face the impossible task of dealing with a 26% surge in prison numbers, compared with just a 9% increase in staffing levels. But they did leave the public with an abiding image of prisoners taking it easy, while law-abiding people have to work hard to earn a living in difficult economic times. So we enter the political minefield of soft on crime, soft on criminals.

Most people who live and work in prisons would agree that there is far too little constructive activity and far too few education and workshop places. You can only clean your cell and the Victorian wing corridor so many times in a week. Even in so-called training prisons, the chief inspector has criticised the lack of work and skills training and proper preparation for release.

The 2,000 prisoners trained by the Samaritans to act as volunteer "listeners" probably do the most useful task as they work to reduce the shocking levels of suicide and self-harm. Most prison reformers, far from supporting idleness in jail, would want to see opportunities opened up for prisoners to pay something back for what they have done, to take some responsibility for their lives and help others.

Under the proposed new pay arrangements, prisoners willing to work, but for whom no gainful employment could be found, would have been paid £4 instead of £2.50 a week. Elderly and disabled prisoners, unable to work, would have received £4.75, up from £3.25. Those lucky enough to secure a prison job would get £5.50 instead of £4. These rates would strike many people as surprisingly little for a working week.

But it's the small things that matter in prison and the extra costs that bite. The BT monopoly means that prisoners, barred from receiving incoming calls on prison payphones, are charged way over the going rate for their calls. Privatised prison canteens mean that basic goods, shampoo or shaving gear for example, far exceed supermarket prices. Too often prisoners fall prey to extortion and bullying.

Information about prisons is hard to come by. The issue of prisoners' pay could, and should, have been managed very differently. Constructive work in prison, housing and employment on release and contact with family are the things that cut re-offending. Overturning the decision to raise prisoners' pay for the first time in 10 years is not only penny-pinching but also cruel and short-sighted. The extra £1.50 could have enabled many people to call home or to sort out accommodation or a job before they come out.

Time and again the government shoots itself in the foot when it comes to prisons in a futile effort to seem tougher than its political opponents. The Citizens Advice Bureau has recently criticised a range of outdated measures that together ensure the financial exclusion of prisoners, ex-prisoners and their families and are virtually bound to contribute to re-offending on release.

Our politicians stand to gain so much from making prisons work better to prevent serious and violent crime. Sensible people would welcome restorative schemes like Timebank at Gloucester prison, where prisoners' work produces credits to benefit the local community. This was announced just yesterday by the justice secretary, Jack Straw. Don't he and the prime minister talk any more?

This article appears on the Guardian's comment is free