No, in 2011 the police conducted 1.2m stop-and-searches in England and Wales. In 2017 that figure was around 300,000 (see chart) and knife crime has risen accordingly.
Is the difference here *section 60* searches? I assume there are a range of police powers?
Yup.
Comes down to the authorisation required and whether may a crime occur not will occur.
Plus the stat the HYUFD is using is for England and Wales, the C4 stat is for the Met only.
Last time I checked London was in England and Wales, a friend of mine was mugged at knifepoint in Camberwell a few weeks ago, he lived there for many years without problems, it is a serious problem
2nd ref only 12 votes adrift. And 3 softest options all came closer than May's deal.
Without knowing which way the abstentions would go it is not as useful as it could be - May's deal is technically the most popular but not the most unpopular, and while it seems doubtful it is possible all these options could still fail even if you removed abstention as an option.
Not really Letwin's fault, but I don't think these two days of MPs taking control have worked out as well as they could have.
Ken telling the house the truth: a"not very political" house
Tbh, the PM was bang on the money when she said parliament was only good at voting against something rather than making decisions in favour of something. They also need to grow up and do their duty, not bollocks about on twatter spouting nonsense.
Ken telling the house the truth: a"not very political" house
Tbh, the PM was bang on the money when she said parliament was only good at voting against something rather than making decisions in favour of something. They also need to grow up and do their duty, not bollocks about on twatter spouting nonsense.
Everyone has pretty lame arguments at this point, given any options brought back have been rejected before. The idea that any rejected options should therefore not be treated as options is therefore, unfortunately, not really fair. The government's strategy to abstain has preserved its argument about relatively more popular (just), but they can hardly deny the others got almost as many and suffered due to abstentions, but equally it would be absurd to say it is not fair for the government to get another crack at its deal when it has received the most votes, even though it was rejected by more.
Hence my suggestion, how can you compare society’s benefitting differently in investment home and abroad, the impact on taxation and households, and a general sense of happiness and well being, due to income from oil revenue? What could work fine in one situation with a populace very happy could be regressive in a different culture, different psychology with deindustrial, health and social care deficits stacking up.
The problem is you have now moved on from quoting false figures and making uninformed statements about how EFTA works to debating happiness in Norway - and with someone who lived and worked there for 15 years.
But the basic position is that if we did choose the Norway option we would pay a lot less to the EU for Single Market access and would be subject to perhaps only 30% of the legislation that we currently have to adopt from the EU. All whilst keeping our trade with them.
It is a very attractive proposition for anyone who is not bothered about the freedom of movement issue.
Let’s skip to the bottom line. We can trade facts to the point a brexit preference becomes abstract. like enjoying time spent with an Eskimo society it works very well, let’s copy them. But there are two killer facts undermining your preference. Norway is a Nordic country of 5 million people. The success or attractiveness of the Norway model is bogus because it is being underwritten by a wealth UK does not have.
Nope. That is completely irrelevant. We are talking about basic facts. How much does Norway pay compared to the UK for single market access and how much of the EU legislation does it have to adopt. Neither of these things are dependent on how 'Nordic' each country is nor on how much oil wealth they have.
You are using utterly irrelevant arguments to try and obfuscate after your basic figures were found to be false.
You dispute the “full fact” site interpretation of the figures, that’s different than proving “mine to be false”, all that proved was there’s different figures and spin out there. I am open minded enough to be more convinced by your figures. But even on the figures you provide there is no argument that is what leave voted for. If you put the Norway model on its own to the UK electorate, they would reject it in a way the Norwegian electorate wouldn’t. This is indicative and an argument you are clearly avoiding, that it’s not irrelevant to say we cannot make a brexit decision without considering the psychology of the UK, the history of the UK (the backstop, the indyref) or the problems of income and expenditure we have ahead of us the Norwegians are not going to have. This IS part of the brexit solution the Norway model has to address.
Getting a sense of farce watching this. If parliament will not pass the Withdrawal Agreement we cannot leave the European Union. A general election must surely be coming.
Getting a sense of farce watching this. If parliament will not pass the Withdrawal Agreement we cannot leave the European Union. A general election must surely be coming.
Yes we can leave. Do not imagine that can’t is the same thing as won’t.
What could work fine in one situation with a populace very happy could be regressive in a different culture, different psychology with deindustrial, health and social care deficits stacking up.
But the basic position is that if we did choose the Norway option we would pay a lot less to the EU for Single Market access and would be subject to perhaps only 30% of the legislation that we currently have to adopt from the EU.
It is a very attractive proposition for anyone who is not bothered about the freedom of movement issue.
there are two killer facts undermining your preference. Norway is a Nordic country of 5 million people. The success or attractiveness of the Norway model is bogus because it is being underwritten by a wealth UK does not have.
Nope. That is completely irrelevant. We are talking about basic facts. How much does Norway pay compared to the UK for single market access and how much of the EU legislation does it have to adopt. Neither of these things are dependent on how 'Nordic' each country is nor on how much oil wealth they have.
You are using utterly irrelevant arguments to try and obfuscate after your basic figures were found to be false.
You dispute the “full fact” site interpretation of the figures, that’s different than proving “mine to be false”, all that proved was there’s different figures and spin out there. I am open minded enough to be more convinced by your figures. But even on the figures you provide there is no argument that is what leave voted for. If you put the Norway model on its own to the UK electorate, they would reject it in a way the Norwegian electorate wouldn’t. This is indicative and an argument you are clearly avoiding, that it’s not irrelevant to say we cannot make a brexit decision without considering the psychology of the UK, the history of the UK (the backstop, the indyref) or the problems of income and expenditure we have ahead of us the Norwegians are not going to have. This IS part of the brexit solution the Norway model has to address.
This whole thing is full of psychology we need to get right. Just relevant to the Norway adoption alone: Does it mean leave voters voted for freedom of movement for workers between UK and EU, and UK part of the Schengen Area? Will Efta club really be comfortable with us and our psychology to regulations and vetoes from other countries where such a system has worked well for them so Far? Will we be comfortable when 38,000 Liechtensteinians veto regulations the UK wants, would that not feel like a backward step from what we are giving up?
Comments
Call it a second referendum and it gets fewer votes.
NEW THREAD
Clarke: Lab 230, Con 37, Ind 5, Lib Dem 1
Superb comment from Ken Clarke demolishing Lucas there.
Not really Letwin's fault, but I don't think these two days of MPs taking control have worked out as well as they could have.
Heart of stone.....
Now just pass the May Shit Deal - and stop being self-important wankers.
The Conservatives really chose some fanatics of various varieties.
Pro Brexit Chauvinists to be purged. Sad decline of Paul Mason continues.
More reason people will want a GE, alas.
They need to be given one final chance to pass May's deal or the house will be prorogued until 15th April and No Deal will just take its course.
Enough of this bullshit!
All other options look exhausted, unless May wants to go for a conf referendum on her Deal.
But even on the figures you provide there is no argument that is what leave voted for. If you put the Norway model on its own to the UK electorate, they would reject it in a way the Norwegian electorate wouldn’t. This is indicative and an argument you are clearly avoiding, that it’s not irrelevant to say we cannot make a brexit decision without considering the psychology of the UK, the history of the UK (the backstop, the indyref) or the problems of income and expenditure we have ahead of us the Norwegians are not going to have. This IS part of the brexit solution the Norway model has to address.
The second vote continues to gather a bit more support .
The direct message from Tory MP Mark Francois to the Chancellor Philip Hammond. Live on BBC Radio 4....
Yep, the Tories really want a general election right now.
Just relevant to the Norway adoption alone:
Does it mean leave voters voted for freedom of movement for workers between UK and EU, and UK part of the Schengen Area?
Will Efta club really be comfortable with us and our psychology to regulations and vetoes from other countries where such a system has worked well for them so Far?
Will we be comfortable when 38,000 Liechtensteinians veto regulations the UK wants, would that not feel like a backward step from what we are giving up?