Part of the issue here is the switch in how crimes are recorded by Jack Straw 20 years or so ago. They switched iirc to calling multiple offences on one occasion, and multiple offences by one offender against one victim as multiple crimes in the stats.
There is also the very dodgy stuff about "hate incidents" (ie not offences) where "recording" was pioneered by the loopy Constabulary of Nottinghamshire a few years ago. The former Chief has been all over TV as a talking head for the last few days. Doubt whether these make the Crime Survey.
Normally it's Labour quoting the Crime Survey to lambast the government, and rightly so as it's a much better measure of what is happening. We know recorded crime is only the tip of the iceberg, and far too easily gamed by the police and government to make the figures look better. You could reduce recorded crime by simply closing police stations to make crimes harder to report.
It's peculiar, youd think Labour command centre will be pretty pissed off with his timing. Waiting til later in the year could be the difference between a Lab hold or not.
He had some sexual misconduct allegations in the past but assumed that had been dealt with.
It's peculiar, youd think Labour command centre will be pretty pissed off with his timing. Waiting til later in the year could be the difference between a Lab hold or not.
He had some sexual misconduct allegations in the past but assumed that had been dealt with.
Would be a great idea but surely Starmer wouldn't want such a clear rival for the leadership in the commons. Even if Ed Balls became shadow chancellor people would look at that as the wrong way around.
Off topic: Has anyone been watching the America's Cup.
This is the first time I have really followed it for some time - via Youtube. Watching a couple of match-racing boats whizzing around Auckland at 60mph is diverting.
But the traditional problem - who to support now that we have been knocked out?
It’s been described as Formula 1 on water - the boats are astonishing multimillion dollar prototypes, and the size and speed doesn’t come across on TV as much as it would watching live. Definitely on the events bucket list to attend at some point.
It's peculiar, youd think Labour command centre will be pretty pissed off with his timing. Waiting til later in the year could be the difference between a Lab hold or not.
He had some sexual misconduct allegations in the past but assumed that had been dealt with.
Its an employment tribunal case which AFAIK is yet to be heard.
Would be a great idea but surely Starmer wouldn't want such a clear rival for the leadership in the commons. Even if Ed Balls became shadow chancellor people would look at that as the wrong way around.
Worth the risk. Starmer desperately needs some heft in Shadow Cabinet. Got to start looking like Government in Waiting.
"Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"
I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.
Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.
But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.
As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.
Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
Some years ago now I used to represent the Crown in sentence appeals. When I started it was taking over a year for appeals to be heard from summary cases where the sentence was less than 12 months. This caused a series of problems.
Firstly, the connection between the offence and the punishment, already often tenuous given the long trial period became virtually non existent. Secondly, almost everyone (except the more serious solemn cases where the sentence ran to a number of years) was on bail. This caused a plethora of problems from absconding, being overtaken by subsequent offending, a reluctance on the part of the court to send someone back to prison for a relatively short period of time, especially if he had got a job, etc etc.
Some resources went into the process which was also improved by a sift which weeded out the more hopeless appeals. The result was a substantial reduction in the time taken by the appeal, less bail and far, far fewer appeals. It was win, win, win. I fear with Covid some of that gain will have been lost.
What I also found in my days as a fiscal prosecuting in the Sheriff court (quite a brief period some time ago now) is that there was a clear correlation between the speed with which things could be brought to trial and the conviction rate. I don't have statistics for that but the correlation was strong. People who knew each other could still ID of course although all too often they had made up. Those who didn't know the accused were entirely understandably somewhat hesitant.
Fast justice is better justice, cheaper justice and more effective justice. Resourcing our courts to process the Himalayan mountain range of cases now pending is far more important than anything else that could be done for the criminal justice system. My guess is that a lot of the more trivial stuff will just never make it to trial.
It would be good imo if we could view the CJS as infrastructure rather than overhead. Because it is, really. It's what keeps the show on the road. Unfortunately, just as health often seems to reduce to "more nurses", for law & order it's "more bobbies on the beat". I suppose the reason is that there's precious few votes in anything else.
True, more legal aid defence lawyers just isn't as catchy but will be essential if we are going to use weekend and evening courts to sort out the backlog.
I am about 95% sure that is not true either. Far more men suffer violence than women. Of course far, far more of the perpetrators of violence are men but that is a different statement.
There is more violent crime against women recorded by the police, mainly due to more offences without injury being recorded. The crime survey on the other hand suggests there is significantly more, a ratio of 3:2, violent crime committed against men. Homicide victims are nearly 3/4 male. So SKS is being a little selective with the statistics he is using there.
There is violent crime committed against people by scumbags. Although said scumbags are a tiny minority, there is too much violent crime and too many scumbags. The fact that the majority of these scumbags are men, should not mean that men and boys who are not scumbags should be shamed by extreme feminists. Women who think otherwise are no better than the misogynists they so despise, and are engaging in no less than prejudice and hate speech.
On Starmer's assertion that 'over 50% of victims of violent crime are women', I think it is unlikely that he has made it up; he's not stupid.
The more likely explanation is that he's using data from the England and Wales Crime Survey (used to be the British Crime Survey). This survey focuses on victims of crime, on the basis that reported crime statistics are, by their very nature, unreliable; most crimes are not, in fact, reported. Most criminologists take much more notice of the Crime Survey than they do of reported crime statistics. So a crime survey will pick up, for example, a much higher incidence of (unreported) domestic violence and sexual assaults against women.
If I'm right, it would have been helpful if Starmer had explained that in his tweet.
I wasn't going to do this because it really ought to be up to the person making the claim to cite their source.
2.0% of males were victims of violent crime (1.0% with injury) 1.3% of females were victimes of violent crime (0.6% with injury)
Source: Crime Survey for England and Wales
However, Table 9 shows the male/female split for police recorded crime (41 forces):
All violence: 44/56 Homicide: 73/27 Violence with injury: 51/49 Without injury: 40/60 Sexual offences: 16/84 Rape: 10/90 Other sexual offences: 19/81
Home Office - Police recorded crime and Homicide Index 1. Police recorded crime data are not designated as National Statistics. In accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, figures from the Homicide Index have been re-assessed against the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and found to meet the required standard for designation as National Statistics.
So, you pays your money, you takes you takes your choice.
I am genuinely astonished at the violence with injury stat. I really did not expect it to be nearly as close as that. I can only suspect "injury" covers a pretty wide range.
"UPDATE: Sources close to the Reform Party leader, Richard Tice, say he is “actively considering the matter” of standing in the seat he fought in the 2019 general election. Labour had a majority of 3,595. The Brexit Party in the constituency got 10,603 in 2019. The question for Tice is where will all them Brexit votes go?"
Hartlepool — it depends whether Richard Tice stands again.
If he doesn't, a Tory gain must be on the cards.
Tice is now leader of Reformation or whatever it's called. He has to stand surely?
Tice in Reform Party in 2021 is less effective than Tice in the Brexit Party 2019 IMO. As has been pointed out the Mayoral campaign running at the same time will help the main parties. I don't think Reform have nominated a candidate yet with 3 weeks until the deadline.
Would be a great idea but surely Starmer wouldn't want such a clear rival for the leadership in the commons. Even if Ed Balls became shadow chancellor people would look at that as the wrong way around.
I think it unlikely to happen, but I would see it as a statement of true leadership. True leaders are not afraid of strong rivals around them, they welcome it. It is why weak characters like Johnson are so averse to having anyone other than lightweights in their team
"Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"
I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.
Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.
But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.
As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.
Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
What you are saying is that, if I remember correctly, Plato is essentially right, and it isn't possible to have a functioning democracy for very long, because the people don't put the work in and allow themselves to be manipulated by cheap slogans.
This is a thoroughly depressing conclusion. It's too early for that, and I'm not about to start drinking yet.
It certainly would be a catastrophe if people no longer allowed themselves to be manipulated by cheap slogans.
Indeed, how would populist politicians convince the gullible that they had taken back control?
Indeed. Like "better together", "unity", "solidarity" and the rest of the codswallop that has addled your brain and twisted you into thinking nations taking responsibility for themselves is a bad thing.
Would be a great idea but surely Starmer wouldn't want such a clear rival for the leadership in the commons. Even if Ed Balls became shadow chancellor people would look at that as the wrong way around.
I think it unlikely to happen, but I would see it as a statement of true leadership. True leaders are not afraid of strong rivals around them, they welcome it. It is why weak characters like Johnson are so averse to having anyone other than lightweights in their team
I'm at a loss as to why people assume Ed Balls would want to return as an MP.
"Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"
I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.
Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.
But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.
As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.
Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.
Deception: because it won't work. Cruel: because it gives victims false hope. Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.
Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
The impression I get is that everything this government does is steered by what they perceive to be the views of one generic individual - a working class Leaver who used to vote Labour but now votes Tory. And if we replace "government" with "Labour opposition" there, it still holds true. Hence the stultifying, 'boxed in' nature of political debate these days.
This. I also get the impression having read the discourse surrounding Brexit, that there appears to be this belief that this group have suffered uniquely in comparison to all other groups in society. Which I always found a bit odd, as many groups have really struggled under the current economic settlement for a while now.
I find it odd too, other than a general feeling I have that white male grievance trumps all other kinds, but it makes a kind of sense if you view Brexit as driven by something other the wallet. The sentiment I keep hearing is that traditionally minded white working class people in England felt ignored and looked down upon by mainstream politicians of all parties. Well presumably they don't now, because nobody else is getting a look in! What interests me is whether they will stick with the Cons post Brexit in the likely absence of material improvement to their lives at the same time as favoured cronies of a Tory government coin it. Perhaps 'the wallet' will make a comeback as a vote driver. I'm hoping it does.
"UPDATE: Sources close to the Reform Party leader, Richard Tice, say he is “actively considering the matter” of standing in the seat he fought in the 2019 general election. Labour had a majority of 3,595. The Brexit Party in the constituency got 10,603 in 2019. The question for Tice is where will all them Brexit votes go?"
Question is why 26% of people in Hartlepool voted for the Brexit Party in a pretty close seat when the Tories basically stood on implementing Brexit. May be pro-Brexit, never Tory types. UKIP being squeezed benefitted Labour more there in 2017.
"UPDATE: Sources close to the Reform Party leader, Richard Tice, say he is “actively considering the matter” of standing in the seat he fought in the 2019 general election. Labour had a majority of 3,595. The Brexit Party in the constituency got 10,603 in 2019. The question for Tice is where will all them Brexit votes go?"
On Starmer's assertion that 'over 50% of victims of violent crime are women', I think it is unlikely that he has made it up; he's not stupid.
The more likely explanation is that he's using data from the England and Wales Crime Survey (used to be the British Crime Survey). This survey focuses on victims of crime, on the basis that reported crime statistics are, by their very nature, unreliable; most crimes are not, in fact, reported. Most criminologists take much more notice of the Crime Survey than they do of reported crime statistics. So a crime survey will pick up, for example, a much higher incidence of (unreported) domestic violence and sexual assaults against women.
If I'm right, it would have been helpful if Starmer had explained that in his tweet.
The trouble is whenever I hear that something is more than x, I immediately assume it is only just more than x. (E,g. more the 78% of Swindon's games end in defeat for the reds - it'll be 79%). It's journalese, where you can never say the same thing twice.
And yet to listen to the Brexiteers on here the EU/EMA are in charge and are dictating to all their stupidity. Which is true - except that it ISN'T. Member states are free to do as they see fit, which is why we have the contrasting polar opposites of Belgium jabbing away and Italy arresting the vaccine for witchcraft.
Have we reached the stage yet where Brexiteer ultras are arguing that the EU should be MORE centralised and integrated?
Does all this straw man nonsense make those foolish enough to oppose us leaving the EU feel a bit better about themselves? Apologies if I have missed it but I have not seen anyone on here say that this is all the fault of the EMA or that it should be. But carry on, I know its a bit embarrassing right now.
You wilfully miss the point. The EMA provides advice to the member states national health agencies who then make the national decision. There is no big bad EU dictating to members to stop using the Oxford jag - members are free to make their own decisions as they are.
That "the EU" keeps getting the blame is what is funny - it isn't the EU dictating to Italy to impound vials or Ireland to say "careful now" on national TV or Belgium to say "we're continuing with our vaccination programme".
No one is saying that it is. No one.
You are literally foaming on about how we no longer have to listen to the opinions of Germany and France. When it comes to healthcare provision in a pandemic NOBODY need listen to them including neighbouring Belgium and Italy. You keep mentioning the EMA - what about it? The EMA didn't prevent us from creating the VTF, didn't prevent the Italians finding satan in glass vials, didn't prevent the Belgians scratching their heads and continuing to vaccinate.
The EU is not the Big Bad. It is not dictating to members. If Germany wants to be stupid thats up to Germany. But it isn't directing the Italians to be insane.
No you're not entirely right.
The EU haven't made this decision but they have laid the groundwork for it by like an arsonist undermining the Astrazeneca vaccine months ago - and then their obsession they encourage of "unity" and "solidarity" between members such that when Germany acts France may not be obliged technically to follow but they feel compelled to.
The EU started this months ago when they went to war with Astrazeneca in a very public and silly manner. They may not be the ones acting today but others are following in their footsteps, actions have consequences.
Hmmm, the EU demanded MORE doses in a very public and silly manner.
Yes claiming falsely that Astrazeneca were engaged in dodgy behaviour, breaking contracts, not following the rules.
You don't see how people here the EU falsely claiming that "Astrazeneca are dodgy and not following the rules" and make a connection from that to thinking they're unsafe?
Just repeating an evidence-free assertion (with made-up "quotes"), that so far as I can tell is just based on your own prejudice rather than any knowledge or understanding isn't going to convince me.
So based on my own experience in Germany: I think that the EU trying everything to get AZ to deliver more doses did not affect people's confidence in the vaccine. Also, the fact that AZ is a UK-headquartered multinational is not a negative factor in people's confidence, nor is the involvement of Oxford University. If anything, the reverse.
"UPDATE: Sources close to the Reform Party leader, Richard Tice, say he is “actively considering the matter” of standing in the seat he fought in the 2019 general election. Labour had a majority of 3,595. The Brexit Party in the constituency got 10,603 in 2019. The question for Tice is where will all them Brexit votes go?"
"Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"
I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.
Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.
But that costs money while a set of new laws is very cheap and looks like you've done something.
As I've pointed numerous times recently the new laws make front page news and people think - nice. The implementation is completely irrelevant unless you are unlucky enough to be a victim of crime.
Sadly most people aren't victims of crime so don't know anything beyond the nice headlines.
What you are saying is that, if I remember correctly, Plato is essentially right, and it isn't possible to have a functioning democracy for very long, because the people don't put the work in and allow themselves to be manipulated by cheap slogans.
This is a thoroughly depressing conclusion. It's too early for that, and I'm not about to start drinking yet.
It certainly would be a catastrophe if people no longer allowed themselves to be manipulated by cheap slogans.
Indeed, how would populist politicians convince the gullible that they had taken back control?
Indeed. Like "better together", "unity", "solidarity" and the rest of the codswallop that has addled your brain and twisted you into thinking nations taking responsibility for themselves is a bad thing.
Lol, I think I might be a little less receptive to slogans than a half-wit populist keyboard warrior such as yourself Philip.
I must say, have had the unusual experience of coming on here a few times recently and you not being on here to give us the benefit of your uninformed-by-real-life-experience opinions. What else has come into your life that means you are unable to spend most of your day writing nonsense on subjects you have no knowledge or experience of? I must say although I enjoy laughing at your ludicrous posts in a way I am unable to at others, I was pleased for you that you must have something better to occupy your braincell.
Question is why 26% of people in Hartlepool voted for the Brexit Party in a pretty close seat when the Tories basically stood on implementing Brexit. May be pro-Brexit, never Tory types. UKIP being squeezed benefitted Labour more there in 2017.
This is going to run alongside a regional mayoral campaign where a big focus is going to be on the success of Ben Houchen within the relative decline in Hartlepool itself.
And for those who like stats - the average sale price of a semi-detached house in the Hartlepool Constituency in 2020 (310 sales) was £129,929.
Would be a great idea but surely Starmer wouldn't want such a clear rival for the leadership in the commons. Even if Ed Balls became shadow chancellor people would look at that as the wrong way around.
Worth the risk. Starmer desperately needs some heft in Shadow Cabinet. Got to start looking like Government in Waiting.
Would be a great idea but surely Starmer wouldn't want such a clear rival for the leadership in the commons. Even if Ed Balls became shadow chancellor people would look at that as the wrong way around.
I think it unlikely to happen, but I would see it as a statement of true leadership. True leaders are not afraid of strong rivals around them, they welcome it. It is why weak characters like Johnson are so averse to having anyone other than lightweights in their team
Completely agree, especially about strong leaders welcoming strong rivals. Dave and Blair were good at this and had a lot of potential rivals in the Cabinet. Brown, May and Boris didn't do this and the nation suffered because of that.
Would be a great idea but surely Starmer wouldn't want such a clear rival for the leadership in the commons. Even if Ed Balls became shadow chancellor people would look at that as the wrong way around.
I think it unlikely to happen, but I would see it as a statement of true leadership. True leaders are not afraid of strong rivals around them, they welcome it. It is why weak characters like Johnson are so averse to having anyone other than lightweights in their team
I'm at a loss as to why people assume Ed Balls would want to return as an MP.
Could become PM in 2029, that's a big pull factor.
A lot depends on Labour's candidate. They have seen this coming. They have chosen the timing. Surely they will have lined up a bunch of strong candidates for the local party to choose between?
And yet to listen to the Brexiteers on here the EU/EMA are in charge and are dictating to all their stupidity. Which is true - except that it ISN'T. Member states are free to do as they see fit, which is why we have the contrasting polar opposites of Belgium jabbing away and Italy arresting the vaccine for witchcraft.
Have we reached the stage yet where Brexiteer ultras are arguing that the EU should be MORE centralised and integrated?
Does all this straw man nonsense make those foolish enough to oppose us leaving the EU feel a bit better about themselves? Apologies if I have missed it but I have not seen anyone on here say that this is all the fault of the EMA or that it should be. But carry on, I know its a bit embarrassing right now.
You wilfully miss the point. The EMA provides advice to the member states national health agencies who then make the national decision. There is no big bad EU dictating to members to stop using the Oxford jag - members are free to make their own decisions as they are.
That "the EU" keeps getting the blame is what is funny - it isn't the EU dictating to Italy to impound vials or Ireland to say "careful now" on national TV or Belgium to say "we're continuing with our vaccination programme".
No one is saying that it is. No one.
You are literally foaming on about how we no longer have to listen to the opinions of Germany and France. When it comes to healthcare provision in a pandemic NOBODY need listen to them including neighbouring Belgium and Italy. You keep mentioning the EMA - what about it? The EMA didn't prevent us from creating the VTF, didn't prevent the Italians finding satan in glass vials, didn't prevent the Belgians scratching their heads and continuing to vaccinate.
The EU is not the Big Bad. It is not dictating to members. If Germany wants to be stupid thats up to Germany. But it isn't directing the Italians to be insane.
No you're not entirely right.
The EU haven't made this decision but they have laid the groundwork for it by like an arsonist undermining the Astrazeneca vaccine months ago - and then their obsession they encourage of "unity" and "solidarity" between members such that when Germany acts France may not be obliged technically to follow but they feel compelled to.
The EU started this months ago when they went to war with Astrazeneca in a very public and silly manner. They may not be the ones acting today but others are following in their footsteps, actions have consequences.
Hmmm, the EU demanded MORE doses in a very public and silly manner.
Yes claiming falsely that Astrazeneca were engaged in dodgy behaviour, breaking contracts, not following the rules.
You don't see how people here the EU falsely claiming that "Astrazeneca are dodgy and not following the rules" and make a connection from that to thinking they're unsafe?
Just repeating an evidence-free assertion (with made-up "quotes"), that so far as I can tell is just based on your own prejudice rather than any knowledge or understanding isn't going to convince me.
So based on my own experience in Germany: I think that the EU trying everything to get AZ to deliver more doses did not affect people's confidence in the vaccine. Also, the fact that AZ is a UK-headquartered multinational is not a negative factor in people's confidence, nor is the involvement of Oxford University. If anything, the reverse.
All of Philip's assertions are based on his prejudice, with the occasional cut and paste from Wiki.
And yet to listen to the Brexiteers on here the EU/EMA are in charge and are dictating to all their stupidity. Which is true - except that it ISN'T. Member states are free to do as they see fit, which is why we have the contrasting polar opposites of Belgium jabbing away and Italy arresting the vaccine for witchcraft.
Have we reached the stage yet where Brexiteer ultras are arguing that the EU should be MORE centralised and integrated?
Does all this straw man nonsense make those foolish enough to oppose us leaving the EU feel a bit better about themselves? Apologies if I have missed it but I have not seen anyone on here say that this is all the fault of the EMA or that it should be. But carry on, I know its a bit embarrassing right now.
You wilfully miss the point. The EMA provides advice to the member states national health agencies who then make the national decision. There is no big bad EU dictating to members to stop using the Oxford jag - members are free to make their own decisions as they are.
That "the EU" keeps getting the blame is what is funny - it isn't the EU dictating to Italy to impound vials or Ireland to say "careful now" on national TV or Belgium to say "we're continuing with our vaccination programme".
No one is saying that it is. No one.
You are literally foaming on about how we no longer have to listen to the opinions of Germany and France. When it comes to healthcare provision in a pandemic NOBODY need listen to them including neighbouring Belgium and Italy. You keep mentioning the EMA - what about it? The EMA didn't prevent us from creating the VTF, didn't prevent the Italians finding satan in glass vials, didn't prevent the Belgians scratching their heads and continuing to vaccinate.
The EU is not the Big Bad. It is not dictating to members. If Germany wants to be stupid thats up to Germany. But it isn't directing the Italians to be insane.
No you're not entirely right.
The EU haven't made this decision but they have laid the groundwork for it by like an arsonist undermining the Astrazeneca vaccine months ago - and then their obsession they encourage of "unity" and "solidarity" between members such that when Germany acts France may not be obliged technically to follow but they feel compelled to.
The EU started this months ago when they went to war with Astrazeneca in a very public and silly manner. They may not be the ones acting today but others are following in their footsteps, actions have consequences.
Hmmm, the EU demanded MORE doses in a very public and silly manner.
Yes claiming falsely that Astrazeneca were engaged in dodgy behaviour, breaking contracts, not following the rules.
You don't see how people here the EU falsely claiming that "Astrazeneca are dodgy and not following the rules" and make a connection from that to thinking they're unsafe?
Just repeating an evidence-free assertion (with made-up "quotes"), that so far as I can tell is just based on your own prejudice rather than any knowledge or understanding isn't going to convince me.
So based on my own experience in Germany: I think that the EU trying everything to get AZ to deliver more doses did not affect people's confidence in the vaccine. Also, the fact that AZ is a UK-headquartered multinational is not a negative factor in people's confidence, nor is the involvement of Oxford University. If anything, the reverse.
Question is why 26% of people in Hartlepool voted for the Brexit Party in a pretty close seat when the Tories basically stood on implementing Brexit. May be pro-Brexit, never Tory types. UKIP being squeezed benefitted Labour more there in 2017.
BXP kyboshed a Tory landslide across the North East. Having chatted to their team in Stockton their main motivation was because they had to keep pressure on the Tories to deliver proper Brexit.
They can run in Pools but with respect to whatever they are called this week it won't remotely connect with people. "You want reform?" they'll say, "thats why we're voting Tory".
A lot depends on Labour's candidate. They have seen this coming. They have chosen the timing. Surely they will have lined up a bunch of strong candidates for the local party to choose between?
Hartlepool CLP is hard left bonkers. They'll select the best continuity Corbyn candidate they can and probably campaign against Starmer. Region will try and direct the campaign from Newcastle and find their organiser gets shut out of the actual campaign.
Would be a great idea but surely Starmer wouldn't want such a clear rival for the leadership in the commons. Even if Ed Balls became shadow chancellor people would look at that as the wrong way around.
I think it unlikely to happen, but I would see it as a statement of true leadership. True leaders are not afraid of strong rivals around them, they welcome it. It is why weak characters like Johnson are so averse to having anyone other than lightweights in their team
Completely agree, especially about strong leaders welcoming strong rivals. Dave and Blair were good at this and had a lot of potential rivals in the Cabinet. Brown, May and Boris didn't do this and the nation suffered because of that.
If Cameron and Blair were good at that how did it happen that there was no leadership contest to choose Blair's replacement, and the contest to replace Cameron came down to May v Leadsom?
Looks like some terrible succession planning in both cases.
It's surrounded by Redcar (gone Tory), Stockton North (now hyper-marginal) and Sedgefield (gone Tory) and Easington, which is comfortably Labour for now but has started to tank, and might become marginal if BXP + Tory votes combined.
There's nothing to say those seats haven't since swung away from Labour further, and I think they'll struggle to break 35% in a by-election.
A lot depends on Labour's candidate. They have seen this coming. They have chosen the timing. Surely they will have lined up a bunch of strong candidates for the local party to choose between?
On Starmer's assertion that 'over 50% of victims of violent crime are women', I think it is unlikely that he has made it up; he's not stupid.
The more likely explanation is that he's using data from the England and Wales Crime Survey (used to be the British Crime Survey). This survey focuses on victims of crime, on the basis that reported crime statistics are, by their very nature, unreliable; most crimes are not, in fact, reported. Most criminologists take much more notice of the Crime Survey than they do of reported crime statistics. So a crime survey will pick up, for example, a much higher incidence of (unreported) domestic violence and sexual assaults against women.
If I'm right, it would have been helpful if Starmer had explained that in his tweet.
I think that must be right. I think it's estimated, for example, that only 10% of rapes are reported.
On Starmer's assertion that 'over 50% of victims of violent crime are women', I think it is unlikely that he has made it up; he's not stupid.
The more likely explanation is that he's using data from the England and Wales Crime Survey (used to be the British Crime Survey). This survey focuses on victims of crime, on the basis that reported crime statistics are, by their very nature, unreliable; most crimes are not, in fact, reported. Most criminologists take much more notice of the Crime Survey than they do of reported crime statistics. So a crime survey will pick up, for example, a much higher incidence of (unreported) domestic violence and sexual assaults against women.
If I'm right, it would have been helpful if Starmer had explained that in his tweet.
I think that must be right. I think it's estimated, for example, that only 10% of rapes are reported.
Someone else mentioned that the crime survey shows the opposite. The statistic is apparently based on reported crimes.
A lot depends on Labour's candidate. They have seen this coming. They have chosen the timing. Surely they will have lined up a bunch of strong candidates for the local party to choose between?
Hartlepool CLP is hard left bonkers. They'll select the best continuity Corbyn candidate they can and probably campaign against Starmer. Region will try and direct the campaign from Newcastle and find their organiser gets shut out of the actual campaign.
Nailed to the floor Tory gain.
That does sound all too credible - and Starmer will take all the blame too.
And yet to listen to the Brexiteers on here the EU/EMA are in charge and are dictating to all their stupidity. Which is true - except that it ISN'T. Member states are free to do as they see fit, which is why we have the contrasting polar opposites of Belgium jabbing away and Italy arresting the vaccine for witchcraft.
Have we reached the stage yet where Brexiteer ultras are arguing that the EU should be MORE centralised and integrated?
Does all this straw man nonsense make those foolish enough to oppose us leaving the EU feel a bit better about themselves? Apologies if I have missed it but I have not seen anyone on here say that this is all the fault of the EMA or that it should be. But carry on, I know its a bit embarrassing right now.
You wilfully miss the point. The EMA provides advice to the member states national health agencies who then make the national decision. There is no big bad EU dictating to members to stop using the Oxford jag - members are free to make their own decisions as they are.
That "the EU" keeps getting the blame is what is funny - it isn't the EU dictating to Italy to impound vials or Ireland to say "careful now" on national TV or Belgium to say "we're continuing with our vaccination programme".
No one is saying that it is. No one.
You are literally foaming on about how we no longer have to listen to the opinions of Germany and France. When it comes to healthcare provision in a pandemic NOBODY need listen to them including neighbouring Belgium and Italy. You keep mentioning the EMA - what about it? The EMA didn't prevent us from creating the VTF, didn't prevent the Italians finding satan in glass vials, didn't prevent the Belgians scratching their heads and continuing to vaccinate.
The EU is not the Big Bad. It is not dictating to members. If Germany wants to be stupid thats up to Germany. But it isn't directing the Italians to be insane.
No you're not entirely right.
The EU haven't made this decision but they have laid the groundwork for it by like an arsonist undermining the Astrazeneca vaccine months ago - and then their obsession they encourage of "unity" and "solidarity" between members such that when Germany acts France may not be obliged technically to follow but they feel compelled to.
The EU started this months ago when they went to war with Astrazeneca in a very public and silly manner. They may not be the ones acting today but others are following in their footsteps, actions have consequences.
Hmmm, the EU demanded MORE doses in a very public and silly manner.
Yes claiming falsely that Astrazeneca were engaged in dodgy behaviour, breaking contracts, not following the rules.
You don't see how people here the EU falsely claiming that "Astrazeneca are dodgy and not following the rules" and make a connection from that to thinking they're unsafe?
Just repeating an evidence-free assertion (with made-up "quotes"), that so far as I can tell is just based on your own prejudice rather than any knowledge or understanding isn't going to convince me.
So based on my own experience in Germany: I think that the EU trying everything to get AZ to deliver more doses did not affect people's confidence in the vaccine. Also, the fact that AZ is a UK-headquartered multinational is not a negative factor in people's confidence, nor is the involvement of Oxford University. If anything, the reverse.
I think the issues are three fold.
1. The EU started this wholly unnecessary spat with AZ, lied about contractual obligations, lied about being able to sue AZ and made a whole bunch of ungainly accusations about AZ favouring the UK because it is British or whatever. 2. European politicians piled in and briefed against the vaccine - Macron's "quasi ineffectual" and the anonymous German health minister briefing the German media about the supposed 8% efficacy in over 65s. 3. National regulators then ignored the EMA, whether through basic scienific illiteracy or political pressure, and only gave it partial licencing for 18-64 year olds. Now they have knowingly bowed to actual political pressure to pause as has been confirmed by both the Italian and French regulators. The EMA advice remains unchanged, the WHO advice remains unchanged and the MHRA has provided data to all showing no causal link between the thrombosis and the vaccine.
All of these actions are linked together, in the UK the Pfizer vaccine has got the same rate of side effects and observed rate of thrombosis as the AZ vaccine. Yet no scrutiny has been forthcoming across European countries over this, in the US at least one death has been causally linked to the Pfizer vaccine, no panic from the same European countries.
The worst part is that all that happens is these EU countries fall further behind in meeting their vaccine targets for the summer. It hurts no one but the people of Europe which is extremely frustrating watching from the outside looking in. It's like watching an old friend self-harm and not being able to do anything about it.
Unfortunately, positive tests (not cases) will probably rise today or tomorrow (thanks to a huge acceleration in testing), and that will be used by the Zero Covid psychopaths as evidence to delay the roadmap. You're going to be able to set your watch by them.
"UPDATE: Sources close to the Reform Party leader, Richard Tice, say he is “actively considering the matter” of standing in the seat he fought in the 2019 general election. Labour had a majority of 3,595. The Brexit Party in the constituency got 10,603 in 2019. The question for Tice is where will all them Brexit votes go?"
I know this isn't really a hard-nosed tactical perspective but I just think Tice has an obligation to at least stand someone, ideally himself, in the seat. You can't decide not to disband the party when we leave the EU but then say you aren't going to contest by-elections in favourable seats. Yes, they will go down from 2019. Yes, they may well lose their deposit. But you are either leading a political party or not.
From a tactical perspective, I think he himself should run. If he gets smashed that looks bad, but if another REFUK candidate gets smashed that looks hardly better. At least he might attract a bit more publicity/votes.
A lot depends on Labour's candidate. They have seen this coming. They have chosen the timing. Surely they will have lined up a bunch of strong candidates for the local party to choose between?
Hartlepool CLP is hard left bonkers. They'll select the best continuity Corbyn candidate they can and probably campaign against Starmer. Region will try and direct the campaign from Newcastle and find their organiser gets shut out of the actual campaign.
Would be a great idea but surely Starmer wouldn't want such a clear rival for the leadership in the commons. Even if Ed Balls became shadow chancellor people would look at that as the wrong way around.
I think it unlikely to happen, but I would see it as a statement of true leadership. True leaders are not afraid of strong rivals around them, they welcome it. It is why weak characters like Johnson are so averse to having anyone other than lightweights in their team
Completely agree, especially about strong leaders welcoming strong rivals. Dave and Blair were good at this and had a lot of potential rivals in the Cabinet. Brown, May and Boris didn't do this and the nation suffered because of that.
If Cameron and Blair were good at that how did it happen that there was no leadership contest to choose Blair's replacement, and the contest to replace Cameron came down to May v Leadsom?
Looks like some terrible succession planning in both cases.
That's unfair. With Blair, the reason was that Brown strong-armed everyone else out of the contest. And in any event, the papers were filled with speculation over Blair's "succession planning" for years before he left. Everyone just knew that there was an agreement with Brown that prevented him from outwardly grooming any other successor.
As for Cameron, the circumstances were somewhat unusual, and two of the best candidates (Gove, Johnson) took themselves out in rather spectacular fashion. That's not even considering Osborne, whose career effectively died with Cameron's.
By-election in Hartlepool?! Rogerdamus nailed on as the new MP, shurely?
I must confess to being a bit confused. I have never been but I had always understood from @Roger that Hartlepool was the archetypal northern dystopia where surely the Labour vote is weighed rather than counted. A Tory gain? Strange days.
Would be a great idea but surely Starmer wouldn't want such a clear rival for the leadership in the commons. Even if Ed Balls became shadow chancellor people would look at that as the wrong way around.
I think it unlikely to happen, but I would see it as a statement of true leadership. True leaders are not afraid of strong rivals around them, they welcome it. It is why weak characters like Johnson are so averse to having anyone other than lightweights in their team
Completely agree, especially about strong leaders welcoming strong rivals. Dave and Blair were good at this and had a lot of potential rivals in the Cabinet. Brown, May and Boris didn't do this and the nation suffered because of that.
When did Brown not have potential rivals in his Cabinet? There was Miliband, Purnell, Johnson, wee dougie to name a few.
It's surrounded by Redcar (gone Tory), Stockton North (now hyper-marginal) and Sedgefield (gone Tory) and Easington, which is comfortably Labour for now but has started to tank, and might become marginal if BXP + Tory votes combined.
There's nothing to say those seats haven't since swung away from Labour further, and I think they'll struggle to break 35% in a by-election.
Though this trend has been happening for years, it's still staggering to someone who started taking an interest in the 90s are either in contention or already blue.
Comments
If he doesn't, a Tory gain must be on the cards.
He had some sexual misconduct allegations in the past but assumed that had been dealt with.
I’m supporting the home team.
Tice split the vote last time round to let Labour through the middle. This time round if Tice stands he won't keep his deposit.
https://order-order.com/2021/03/16/breaking-mike-hill-resigns-as-labour-hartlepool-mp/
"It's a disgrace! Vote Tory and get money bunged at you!"
1st 16,935 2nd 8,728
UK Equivalent : 535,787
In case anyone is wondering I'm using the following figures
18+
Wales 2,522,940
England 44,263,393
Scotland 4,434,138
NI 1,452,962
They have nothing to lose.
If not Tice, then maybe a quarter.
I think many are ex Labour voters who could never see themselves voting Tory. Not even to Get Brexit Done.
The Tories could have been close precisely because Tice splits the Labour vote, not Tory vote.
And that is going to tend Tory because of the Hartlepool Freeport area and other similar bits.
So based on my own experience in Germany:
I think that the EU trying everything to get AZ to deliver more doses did not affect people's confidence in the vaccine.
Also, the fact that AZ is a UK-headquartered multinational is not a negative factor in people's confidence, nor is the involvement of Oxford University. If anything, the reverse.
my best guess is that BXP votes would have gone 2/3rds Tory 1/3 Lab in 2019, making the result very close.
But this time, the rump of voters left in BXP probably are majority Tory votes lost.
I think this should be 4/6 Lab hold probably.
I must say, have had the unusual experience of coming on here a few times recently and you not being on here to give us the benefit of your uninformed-by-real-life-experience opinions. What else has come into your life that means you are unable to spend most of your day writing nonsense on subjects you have no knowledge or experience of? I must say although I enjoy laughing at your ludicrous posts in a way I am unable to at others, I was pleased for you that you must have something better to occupy your braincell.
UK Equivalent : 296,074
And for those who like stats - the average sale price of a semi-detached house in the Hartlepool Constituency in 2020 (310 sales) was £129,929.
Labour Mike Hill 15,464 37.7
General election 2019: Redcar
Labour Co-op Anna Turley 15,284 37.4
Nailed on swing to the government. Probable gain.
https://twitter.com/phil_ipp_fritz/status/1371793208947175431?s=20
They can run in Pools but with respect to whatever they are called this week it won't remotely connect with people. "You want reform?" they'll say, "thats why we're voting Tory".
Nailed to the floor Tory gain.
Looks like some terrible succession planning in both cases.
It's surrounded by Redcar (gone Tory), Stockton North (now hyper-marginal) and Sedgefield (gone Tory) and Easington, which is comfortably Labour for now but has started to tank, and might become marginal if BXP + Tory votes combined.
There's nothing to say those seats haven't since swung away from Labour further, and I think they'll struggle to break 35% in a by-election.
(*OK, I know that that "next leader" was Starmer...)
I think it's estimated, for example, that only 10% of rapes are reported.
However if they won it would be big.
1. The EU started this wholly unnecessary spat with AZ, lied about contractual obligations, lied about being able to sue AZ and made a whole bunch of ungainly accusations about AZ favouring the UK because it is British or whatever.
2. European politicians piled in and briefed against the vaccine - Macron's "quasi ineffectual" and the anonymous German health minister briefing the German media about the supposed 8% efficacy in over 65s.
3. National regulators then ignored the EMA, whether through basic scienific illiteracy or political pressure, and only gave it partial licencing for 18-64 year olds. Now they have knowingly bowed to actual political pressure to pause as has been confirmed by both the Italian and French regulators. The EMA advice remains unchanged, the WHO advice remains unchanged and the MHRA has provided data to all showing no causal link between the thrombosis and the vaccine.
All of these actions are linked together, in the UK the Pfizer vaccine has got the same rate of side effects and observed rate of thrombosis as the AZ vaccine. Yet no scrutiny has been forthcoming across European countries over this, in the US at least one death has been causally linked to the Pfizer vaccine, no panic from the same European countries.
The worst part is that all that happens is these EU countries fall further behind in meeting their vaccine targets for the summer. It hurts no one but the people of Europe which is extremely frustrating watching from the outside looking in. It's like watching an old friend self-harm and not being able to do anything about it.
From a tactical perspective, I think he himself should run. If he gets smashed that looks bad, but if another REFUK candidate gets smashed that looks hardly better. At least he might attract a bit more publicity/votes.
As for Cameron, the circumstances were somewhat unusual, and two of the best candidates (Gove, Johnson) took themselves out in rather spectacular fashion. That's not even considering Osborne, whose career effectively died with Cameron's.
Very pro-EU apparently. Sigh.