That seems entirely reasonable to me. Benazir Bhutto was killed due to a bombing of a vehicle she was in, and Pervez Musharraf survived a couple of attempts to blow him up when in his car.
If you are the leader in Pakistan stay away from public roads.
I think it is the claim of it being super cheap that is being mocked.
Yes, those numbers are bolleaux. A twin jet helo comes in around $10k an hour in the West. Government labour and cheap fuel would reduce that a little, but one assumes they don’t use cheap Chinese knock-off spares to keep the President’s transport serviceable.
That said, the cost of ground transport for him would be massive, given the security required.
So much for Nick P's strategy of keeping quiet about antisemitism. Every time the story looks like it might die down, something comes up to push it back up the news agenda.
The fact that Corbyn can't kill this row suggests that if he becomes PM and has to deal with a crisis, it won't go very well.
These things aren't organically "coming up", they're deliberately being put on the news agenda. The wreath story is a rerun, it was a story during the 2017 election. The public ignored it.
You're right that some of it is Corbyn's opponents in the press digging for dirt. The point I was trying to make is that skilled politicians usually have a way of killing stories whether it be a public enquiry, throwing someone under the bus or a dead cat on the table.
You're right that some of it is Corbyn's opponents in the press digging for dirt. The point I was trying to make is that skilled politicians usually have a way of killing stories whether it be a public enquiry, throwing someone under the bus or a dead cat on the table.
The crucial point is that there's plenty of dirt to find, with a whole back-catalogue more to come out.
We may be dealing with an apartheid regime with despicable views but come on Jeremy protesting outside their embassy just isn't cricket old sport...
Edit: interesting thread Richard.
I do admire your stoical defence of Corbyn but nothing you can do now will change the narrative on Corbyn and anti semetic views and this will follow him for as long as he leads the labour party including a GE campaign.
Who would have thought that virtually all the summer holidays would be dominated with Corbyn's anti semetic issues giving the government a free pass. Labour's lost summer
The problem with the racism scandals in both parties is the voters either don't care, think the other party is worse or think the other party is just as bad or just disbelieve it.
With Parliament coming back soon the newspapers will have to actually get back to reporting on the government more regularly, which is probably good for Labour.
One slight amendment. You are broadly right but in Labour's case it is the leader of the Party. That makes a big difference (cf Tim Farron).
Is this a reference to the hostile environment policy towards the windrush generation and the citizens of nowhere comment?
She was merely a prominent Conservative who didn't speak out during the london mayoral campaign so I guess she can only be partially blamed there.
Good point.
Edit: Not seeing a rush to discipline Boris for his recent comments either...
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly.
Prove she didn’t say anything about the mayoral campaign.
A Labpur Party that has no room in it for people like Field should be ashamed of itself.
It won't win if only tolerates true believers. An irrelevance talking to itself.
This is an incredibly odd objection from you of all people: the main reason Field was abandoned by his local party was because of his stance on Brexit, and you've been saying for a long time that Labour should have a "stronger" (or, one could say, a more "true believer") stance on Brexit, haven't you?
Mr. 565, I'm mildly amused you remember that (and I did excoriate him, and later May, for the idiotic desire to meddle with energy prices) but appear not to recall a more recent post I made saying we should be generally more aware of and accurate with our language (about Trump and Nazis), including an admission that I'd made such an error myself with over-egging the Miliband lefty cake.
Given around 40% of Londoners voted Leave there is a market for Farage to tap especially as he is more high profile than Boff or Bailey, the Cameroon leading Tory contenders
Wonga into administration. Who are we going to get our 1000%+ APR loans from now?
QuickQuid and a whole host of other payday lenders that advertise on daytime telly.
That was my concern about this: as far as I am aware the demand for such loans has not disappeared; in which case where is it being fulfilled? I can only hope it isn't with totally unregulated local groups (my mind has gone utterly and criminally blank, and I cannot remember what those people were called).
Wonga into administration. Who are we going to get our 1000%+ APR loans from now?
QuickQuid and a whole host of other payday lenders that advertise on daytime telly.
That was my concern about this: as far as I am aware the demand for such loans has not disappeared; in which case where is it being fulfilled? I can only hope it isn't with totally unregulated local groups (my mind has gone utterly and criminally blank, and I cannot remember what those people were called).
Loan sharks. Dirty Des and Big Phil the door knockers, and Billy “the Bat” to collect the payments.
For all that we on here (mainly a bunch of middle class with decent jobs who have no problem accessing credit) laugh about high interest short term loans, there is a market that needs to be served, and if we over-regulate it there are unintended consequences.
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
A Labpur Party that has no room in it for people like Field should be ashamed of itself.
It won't win if only tolerates true believers. An irrelevance talking to itself.
This is an incredibly odd objection from you of all people: the main reason Field was abandoned by his local party was because of his stance on Brexit, and you've been saying for a long time that Labour should have a "stronger" (or, one could say, a more "true believer") stance on Brexit, haven't you?
Saying I want the Labour leadership to get off the fence and take a stronger stance on Brexit does not mean I cannot tolerate dissent from backbenchers. Absolutism seems a weakness of the left.
Some disgusting examples of the cult on twitter / blogging.
Those examples are inexcusable, and I can only hope that they lead to ejections from the party where complaints are made.
I do think it's a bit rich of the author to make a comment about "good Jews" though, given how he was one of the people who considered Jewdas to be the wrong kind of Jews
You're right that some of it is Corbyn's opponents in the press digging for dirt. The point I was trying to make is that skilled politicians usually have a way of killing stories whether it be a public enquiry, throwing someone under the bus or a dead cat on the table.
The crucial point is that there's plenty of dirt to find, with a whole back-catalogue more to come out.
Conference season is going to be fun:
The Tories: arguments over Brexit/Chequers Labour: Momentum vs. the MPs LDs: Next party leader SNP: The treatment of Salmond UKIP: Undermining this month's leader
Wonga into administration. Who are we going to get our 1000%+ APR loans from now?
QuickQuid and a whole host of other payday lenders that advertise on daytime telly.
That was my concern about this: as far as I am aware the demand for such loans has not disappeared; in which case where is it being fulfilled? I can only hope it isn't with totally unregulated local groups (my mind has gone utterly and criminally blank, and I cannot remember what those people were called).
Loan sharks. Dirty Des and Big Phil the door knockers, and Billy “the Bat” to collect the payments.
For all that we on here (mainly a bunch of middle class with decent jobs who have no problem accessing credit) laugh about high interest short term loans, there is a market that needs to be served, and if we over-regulate it there are unintended consequences.
Thanks; a rather terrible brain-fade from me there.
I agree with your latter paragraph, but from memory Wonga were taking the p*ss.
You're right that some of it is Corbyn's opponents in the press digging for dirt. The point I was trying to make is that skilled politicians usually have a way of killing stories whether it be a public enquiry, throwing someone under the bus or a dead cat on the table.
The crucial point is that there's plenty of dirt to find, with a whole back-catalogue more to come out.
Conference season is going to be fun:
The Tories: arguments over Brexit/Chequers Labour: Momentum vs. the MPs LDs: Next party leader SNP: The treatment of Salmond UKIP: Undermining this month's leader
The Midlands and Wales are split on Brexit on that poll and now also contain the most marginal seats, the North is the most pro Brexit and pro Labour then the South which is pro Brexit and pro Tory and London and Scotland the most pro Remain as at the referendum
A Labpur Party that has no room in it for people like Field should be ashamed of itself.
It won't win if only tolerates true believers. An irrelevance talking to itself.
This is an incredibly odd objection from you of all people: the main reason Field was abandoned by his local party was because of his stance on Brexit, and you've been saying for a long time that Labour should have a "stronger" (or, one could say, a more "true believer") stance on Brexit, haven't you?
Saying I want the Labour leadership to get off the fence and take a stronger stance on Brexit does not mean I cannot tolerate dissent from backbenchers. Absolutism seems a weakness of the left.
But it's not "the left" that got the crucial numbers to oust Field. Do you think it's a coincidence that the only 3 Lab MPs to have motions of no confidence passed in them (Field, Hoey, Stringer) are Brexit supporters? It's only when the diehard Corbyn ultras form an unholy alliance with ultra-Remainers that the threshold for deselections / no-confidence motions is reached.
And as I say, I wouldn't have supported a no confidence motion in either Field or Stringer (Hoey I'd maybe have considered a bit more).
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May;s critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Too busy supping from their Labour Party immigration mugs.
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
Wonga into administration. Who are we going to get our 1000%+ APR loans from now?
QuickQuid and a whole host of other payday lenders that advertise on daytime telly.
That was my concern about this: as far as I am aware the demand for such loans has not disappeared; in which case where is it being fulfilled? I can only hope it isn't with totally unregulated local groups (my mind has gone utterly and criminally blank, and I cannot remember what those people were called).
Loan sharks. Dirty Des and Big Phil the door knockers, and Billy “the Bat” to collect the payments.
For all that we on here (mainly a bunch of middle class with decent jobs who have no problem accessing credit) laugh about high interest short term loans, there is a market that needs to be served, and if we over-regulate it there are unintended consequences.
Thanks; a rather terrible brain-fade from me there.
I agree with your latter paragraph, but from memory Wonga were taking the p*ss.
They weren’t sending the boys round to rough you up if you couldn’t pay.
I think the last regulation was to limit the amount of interest charged to one month at 1% per day, or something similar. I imagine they got caught out by lots of people who owed them a hundred or two and the effort to get and enforce a court order wasn’t worth it.
Compound interest works in funny ways. If I borrow £20 from you and say I’ll pay you back next week and buy you a pint (£4), if that arrangement rolls over unsettled and compounding for 52 weeks I’ll owe you £262,093 at an annual rate of 1,310,463%.
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
12 cases in 8 years looks similar to 6 cases in 8 years?
Wonga into administration. Who are we going to get our 1000%+ APR loans from now?
QuickQuid and a whole host of other payday lenders that advertise on daytime telly.
That was my concern about this: as far as I am aware the demand for such loans has not disappeared; in which case where is it being fulfilled? I can only hope it isn't with totally unregulated local groups (my mind has gone utterly and criminally blank, and I cannot remember what those people were called).
Loan sharks. Dirty Des and Big Phil the door knockers, and Billy “the Bat” to collect the payments.
For all that we on here (mainly a bunch of middle class with decent jobs who have no problem accessing credit) laugh about high interest short term loans, there is a market that needs to be served, and if we over-regulate it there are unintended consequences.
Thanks; a rather terrible brain-fade from me there.
I agree with your latter paragraph, but from memory Wonga were taking the p*ss.
They weren’t sending the boys round to rough you up if you couldn’t pay.
I think the last regulation was to limit the amount of interest charged to one month at 1% per day, or something similar. I imagine they got caught out by lots of people who owed them a hundred or two and the effort to get and enforce a court order wasn’t worth it.
Compound interest works in funny ways. If I borrow £20 from you and say I’ll pay you back next week and buy you a pint (£4), if that arrangement rolls over unsettled and compounding for 52 weeks I’ll owe you £262,093 at an annual rate of 1,310,463%.
Yes, APR is a completely meaningless number for short-term loans. The big issue is when they get rolled over and the short-term loan becomes longer-term.
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
12 cases in 8 years looks similar to 6 cases in 8 years?
This is getting childish. Both parties were to blame over a long period of time
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
12 cases in 8 years looks similar to 6 cases in 8 years?
And by the way, the reason we know the numbers per administration is because Javid deliberately split the numbers that way in his letter. Given the amount of choice he had (e.g. choosing 18 cases) I'm being very generous in assuming that the numbers weren't massaged. A 2-1 ratio is the best he could come up with
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
12 cases in 8 years looks similar to 6 cases in 8 years?
It's not 8 years in Labour's case, the new legislation came into effect in Feb 2008.
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
12 cases in 8 years looks similar to 6 cases in 8 years?
These are small numbers so the statistics are dominated by Poisson noise. The standard deviation is equal to the square root of the number.
So is 12 +/- 3.5 consistent with 6 +/- 2.4 ?
Yes, at the one a bit sigma effect, so the difference is not statistically significant.
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
No mention of Home Secretary or Government responsible......in 2005....
In fairness given the number of Home Secretaries Blair got through it may have been difficult to remember who was in charge at any given moment (and 'in charge' was of course a relative term).
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
12 cases in 8 years looks similar to 6 cases in 8 years?
It's not 8 years in Labour's case, the new legislation came into effect in Feb 2008.
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
12 cases in 8 years looks similar to 6 cases in 8 years?
And by the way, the reason we know the numbers per administration is because Javid deliberately split the numbers that way in his letter. Given the amount of choice he had (e.g. choosing 18 cases) I'm being very generous in assuming that the numbers weren't massaged. A 2-1 ratio is the best he could come up with
How mean of him not to play along with the crude attempts by Labour to escape blame and pin it all on Theresa May. What a rotter!
That would be bloody funny. But also very much deserved.
For services to saving her ass every Brexit vote
It is hilarious how Frank Field voting against the Labour whip because he supports Brexit is treachery, but decades of Jeremy Corbyn voting against the Labour whip on the same subject were honourable examples of True Labour voting.
That would be bloody funny. But also very much deserved.
For services to saving her ass every Brexit vote
Frank Fields has been one of the most popular mps across the HOC and made a great impression with a lot of people. He has been a loyal and honest servant of the labour party over years
Your comment lets you down, not Frank Fields. Please do not join the hate mob
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
12 cases in 8 years looks similar to 6 cases in 8 years?
These are small numbers so the statistics are dominated by Poisson noise. The standard deviation is equal to the square root of the number.
So is 12 +/- 3.5 consistent with 6 +/- 2.4 ?
Yes, at the one a bit sigma effect, so the difference is not statistically significant.
That's not how it works. You don't take the square root of the numbers separately.
One way to think about this is coin flips. If the administration had no effect on the probability of a bad case arising, then the chance of any given case being under Labour would be 0.5. There were 12 trials, so we can use the binomial distribution and ask what's the probability of getting 8 or more heads out of 12 coin flips. Answer is 19%.
It'd be nice to have more data, I agree. However in the realm of politics I'm happy being 4/5 confident.
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
12 cases in 8 years looks similar to 6 cases in 8 years?
And by the way, the reason we know the numbers per administration is because Javid deliberately split the numbers that way in his letter. Given the amount of choice he had (e.g. choosing 18 cases) I'm being very generous in assuming that the numbers weren't massaged. A 2-1 ratio is the best he could come up with
How mean of him not to play along with the crude attempts by Labour to escape blame and pin it all on Theresa May. What a rotter!
*jumps up and down in seat and sticks hand up*
Please sir, please sir, I'm happy to pin the blame on Labour AND Theresa May.
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
12 cases in 8 years looks similar to 6 cases in 8 years?
And by the way, the reason we know the numbers per administration is because Javid deliberately split the numbers that way in his letter. Given the amount of choice he had (e.g. choosing 18 cases) I'm being very generous in assuming that the numbers weren't massaged. A 2-1 ratio is the best he could come up with
How mean of him not to play along with the crude attempts by Labour to escape blame and pin it all on Theresa May. What a rotter!
If he is expelled from Labour for refusing to accept casual anti-semitism from the leadership and bullying by a local councillor, Labour really are stuffed.
That would be bloody funny. But also very much deserved.
For services to saving her ass every Brexit vote
Frank Fields has been one of the most popular mps across the HOC and made a great impression with a lot of people. He has been a loyal and honest servant of the labour party over years
Your comment lets you down, not Frank Fields. Please do not join the hate mob
A hate mob there will be - he has been disloyal to jezbollah
Dissent will not be tolerated (in the new kinder, gentler party)
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
12 cases in 8 years looks similar to 6 cases in 8 years?
And by the way, the reason we know the numbers per administration is because Javid deliberately split the numbers that way in his letter. Given the amount of choice he had (e.g. choosing 18 cases) I'm being very generous in assuming that the numbers weren't massaged. A 2-1 ratio is the best he could come up with
How mean of him not to play along with the crude attempts by Labour to escape blame and pin it all on Theresa May. What a rotter!
*jumps up and down in seat and sticks hand up*
Please sir, please sir, I'm happy pin blame on Labour AND Theresa May.
Yes, that's fair enough, since they were the two parties who have been in government for the entire period that this scandal has been brewing (we'll excuse the LibDems from this one). The origins of the scandal go back decades, to when the 'WIndrush generation' (actually mostly later arrivals than the Windrush generation) were given rights but with no attempt to document those rights.
Group A: Atletico Madrid, Dortmund, Monaco Group B: Barcelona, TOTTENHAM, PSV, Group C: PSG, Napoli, LIVERPOOL Group D Lokomotiv Moscow, Porto, Schalke Group E: Bayern Munich, Benfica, Ajax Group F: MAN CITY, Shakhtar, Lyon, Hoffenheim Group G: Real Madrid, Roma, CSKA Moscow Group H: Juventus, MAN UTD, Valencia
Greetings from Estonia .you've got to love the chaos in uk politics right now. But this is mild by comparison with the chaos that would ensue from the fraud theft and money laundering ruining the UK being exposed........
The hostile environment was a response to an electoral mandate. It seems to have been implemented badly....
It also predated her time at the Home Office. A substantial number of the scandalous cases which have emerged were under Labour, which was the government which brought in the requirements for proving entitlement to benefits and to work here. Oddly, Theresa May's critics never seem to mention this. It must be an honest oversight on their part, I guess.
Of the cases Javid apologised for, 2/3rds occurred under the Tory government. Previous administrations aren't innocent, but that's no reason for giving May a pass on doubling the severity of this scandal.
I don't think she did 'double the severity'. The number of cases per year looks fairly similar.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
12 cases in 8 years looks similar to 6 cases in 8 years?
These are small numbers so the statistics are dominated by Poisson noise. The standard deviation is equal to the square root of the number.
So is 12 +/- 3.5 consistent with 6 +/- 2.4 ?
Yes, at the one a bit sigma effect, so the difference is not statistically significant.
That's not how it works. You don't take the square root of the numbers separately.
One way to think about this is coin flips. If the administration had no effect on the probability of a bad case arising, then the chance of any given case being under Labour would be 0.5. There were 12 trials, so we can use the binomial distribution and ask what's the probability of getting 8 or more heads out of 12 coin flips. Answer is 19%.
It'd be nice to have more data, I agree. However in the realm of politics I'm happy being 4/5 confident.
Whoops, can't edit this now but actually disregard my first line, I think what you did is correct. I agree with one-and-a-bit sigma level.
Comments
So what will he do
Also are England going to get to 200
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45352744
A helicopter is the right way for him to travel.
(Let's see if that goes down better than my pun about Salmond being canned, which appears to have been too subtle for most people).
That said, the cost of ground transport for him would be massive, given the security required.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW-0kbIcf1E
https://youtu.be/yxdbu8b4ITk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45359395
Thinking of number threes, I suppose Clarke and Fell at Worcestershire might come into the reckoning, but they're still very young too.
Prove she didn’t say anything about the mayoral campaign.
And Boris is not leader of the party.
Other than that...
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1035188362829864966
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1035190730808012802
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1035195952666173440
Do you think Corbyn is fit to be PM?
@EuropeElects
Germany, YouGov poll:
CDU/CSU-EPP: 28% (-2)
SPD-S&D: 17%
AfD-EFDD: 17%
GRÜNE-G/EFA: 13% (+1)
LINKE-LEFT: 11%
FDP-ALDE: 9%
Field work: 24/08/18 – 28/08/18
Sample size: 1,538"
For all that we on here (mainly a bunch of middle class with decent jobs who have no problem accessing credit) laugh about high interest short term loans, there is a market that needs to be served, and if we over-regulate it there are unintended consequences.
Power gets a bit further away with every departure the Corbyn Clowns cheer on......
I do think it's a bit rich of the author to make a comment about "good Jews" though, given how he was one of the people who considered Jewdas to be the wrong kind of Jews
The Tories: arguments over Brexit/Chequers
Labour: Momentum vs. the MPs
LDs: Next party leader
SNP: The treatment of Salmond
UKIP: Undermining this month's leader
I agree with your latter paragraph, but from memory Wonga were taking the p*ss.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1035172337153462274
And as I say, I wouldn't have supported a no confidence motion in either Field or Stringer (Hoey I'd maybe have considered a bit more).
The data seem to refer to a Frankenstein creation, called Midlands/Wales.
A better criticism would be that the coalition government should have noticed the cases that had been happening under Labour, and improved the administration accordingly. But of course that won't do as a criticism, because SHE'S A NASTY TORY DELIBERATELY WRECKING PEOPLE'S LIVES or some other such vile garbage.
I think the last regulation was to limit the amount of interest charged to one month at 1% per day, or something similar. I imagine they got caught out by lots of people who owed them a hundred or two and the effort to get and enforce a court order wasn’t worth it.
Compound interest works in funny ways. If I borrow £20 from you and say I’ll pay you back next week and buy you a pint (£4), if that arrangement rolls over unsettled and compounding for 52 weeks I’ll owe you £262,093 at an annual rate of 1,310,463%.
https://youtu.be/O7yaCHQE7xY
Really rub the salt into the wound.
https://twitter.com/portraitinflesh/status/1035201399875952641
It has gone. It is no more. At least for a decade or maybe even more.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/28/fight-of-his-life-boxer-trapped-in-jamaica-for-13-years-allowed-back-to-uk
No mention of Home Secretary or Government responsible......in 2005....
So is 12 +/- 3.5 consistent with 6 +/- 2.4 ?
Yes, at the one a bit sigma effect, so the difference is not statistically significant.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45359009
Your comment lets you down, not Frank Fields. Please do not join the hate mob
One way to think about this is coin flips. If the administration had no effect on the probability of a bad case arising, then the chance of any given case being under Labour would be 0.5. There were 12 trials, so we can use the binomial distribution and ask what's the probability of getting 8 or more heads out of 12 coin flips. Answer is 19%.
It'd be nice to have more data, I agree. However in the realm of politics I'm happy being 4/5 confident.
Please sir, please sir, I'm happy to pin the blame on Labour AND Theresa May.
This may be why he's done it, of course...
Dissent will not be tolerated (in the new kinder, gentler party)
He propped up the Tories.
You really don't have a clue
Fancy a bet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVBX7l2zgRw
I expect Joe Gomez will have Neymar in his pocket for both legs.
Group A: Atletico Madrid, Dortmund, Monaco
Group B: Barcelona, TOTTENHAM, PSV,
Group C: PSG, Napoli, LIVERPOOL
Group D Lokomotiv Moscow, Porto, Schalke
Group E: Bayern Munich, Benfica, Ajax
Group F: MAN CITY, Shakhtar, Lyon, Hoffenheim
Group G: Real Madrid, Roma, CSKA Moscow
Group H: Juventus, MAN UTD, Valencia
I wouldn't completely rule him out winning as an independent, he has a reputation as a very assiduous MP. But probably not likely.
The guy is a twat.