The UK homicide rate is now roughly equivalent to the Western European average and at its lowest level since 1978 But UK violent crime rate is significantly higher than the European average
The UK homicide rate is now roughly equivalent to the Western European average and at its lowest level since 1978 But UK violent crime rate is significantly higher than the European average
why is our viloent crime rate so high?
The great news is that it has fallen more rapidly in the UK than anywhere else in Europe over the last 10 years. It's interesting that extreme poverty is cited as the factor most closely associated with violence. As we know, over the period of the last Labour government more people were lifted out of poverty than had been the case previously. That looks like a significant intangible benfit associated with increased welfare spending and one that hopefully the current government will tak enote of. What is also notewothy is that violent crime and murder fell so much at a time of high immigration.
Boundaries should be sourced entirely outwith parliament as MPs self interest will always prevail on such matters.
Anyway the table shows a ~5% difference in the electorate size between Lab and Con seats. This is the BIAS in the system, the lower turnout in LAB seats which gives them another advantage I would argue is about the labour vote EFFICIENCY (Not bias).
The combination of the bias (5.5%) and efficiency advantage of Labour ~ 11% yields a ~ 18% advantage in the numbers needed to win a seat. Seats should be reviewed each electoral cycle to ensure there is an even a distribution of the electorate across seats as possible (70,000 electorate for 650 seats maybe ?).
The number of seats should be a seperate argument, though quite why the Lib Dems had in their manifesto to reduce the number of MPs even though this will probably disadvantage them I'll never know...
In summary the Labour advantage is one of both efficiency and bias. The efficiency is something CON can't really do anything about other than trying to improve their own (Measures aimed at improving life in the battlegrounds of the Midlands and the north maybe.) The BIAS (Different seat sizes) should really be kept as low as possible between GEs by an eternal review system that ensures the projected electorate for the next GE is as evenly distributed as possible between all the seats. Reductions to 600 (Or perhaps increases to 700 ?) seats are a matter for voting in the HoC though I don't think increasing the number of MPs would go down at all well.
At any rate boundary reviews should be taken entirely outwith the HoC and performed on a cycle to switch at each GE.
My highpoint of the last 24hrs has been McCluskey demanding a General Strike - given that 81% of Labour's donations have come from unions - this is marvellous news :^ )
"Well, indeed. I basically think immigration should be next to impossible if your household earns less than, say, £40k a year, and we should allow virtually open immigration to people earning more than, say, £70k (albeit with requirements of oaths on values, civics tests and English language ability)."
Not sure about that. We would, for example, lose a lot of potentially fantastic R&D expertise if we prevented very well qualifiued immigrants from taking entry level university research jobs.
Sorry, I was talking for a two person household. For a lone individual it would be half that £40k number. But even above that number you should have to be very high skilled.
My highpoint of the last 24hrs has been McCluskey demanding a General Strike - given that 81% of Labour's donations have come from unions - this is marvellous news :^ )
Presumably, though, you would join Ed Miliband in opposing a general strike. You surely could not want one to be called just because it migt embarrass Labour in some way.
"Well, indeed. I basically think immigration should be next to impossible if your household earns less than, say, £40k a year, and we should allow virtually open immigration to people earning more than, say, £70k (albeit with requirements of oaths on values, civics tests and English language ability)."
Not sure about that. We would, for example, lose a lot of potentially fantastic R&D expertise if we prevented very well qualifiued immigrants from taking entry level university research jobs.
Sorry, I was talking for a two person household. For a lone individual it would be half that £40k number. But even above that number you should have to be very high skilled.
What about a married genius researcher whose spouse did not work?
Boundaries should be sourced entirely outwith parliament as MPs self interest will always prevail on such matters.
Anyway the table shows a ~5% difference in the electorate size between Lab and Con seats. This is the BIAS in the system, the lower turnout in LAB seats which gives them another advantage I would argue is about the labour vote EFFICIENCY (Not bias).
The combination of the bias (5.5%) and efficiency advantage of Labour ~ 11% yields a ~ 18% advantage in the numbers needed to win a seat. Seats should be reviewed each electoral cycle to ensure there is an even a distribution of the electorate across seats as possible (70,000 electorate for 650 seats maybe ?).
The number of seats should be a seperate argument, though quite why the Lib Dems had in their manifesto to reduce the number of MPs even though this will probably disadvantage them I'll never know...
In summary the Labour advantage is one of both efficiency and bias. The efficiency is something CON can't really do anything about other than trying to improve their own (Measures aimed at improving life in the battlegrounds of the Midlands and the north maybe.) The BIAS (Different seat sizes) should really be kept as low as possible between GEs by an eternal review system that ensures the projected electorate for the next GE is as evenly distributed as possible between all the seats. Reductions to 600 (Or perhaps increases to 700 ?) seats are a matter for voting in the HoC though I don't think increasing the number of MPs would go down at all well.
At any rate boundary reviews should be taken entirely outwith the HoC and performed on a cycle to switch at each GE.
If the 650 seats were evenly distributed around the UK by Electorate, we would get:
Region/Nation electorate seats average NEW change EAST MIDLANDS 3342019 46 72653 48 2 EASTERN 4276010 58 73724 61 3 LONDON 5265564 73 72131 75 2 NORTH EAST 1954707 29 67404 28 -1 NORTH WEST 5250200 75 70003 75 0 SOUTH EAST 6316817 84 75200 90 6 SOUTH WEST 4012541 55 72955 57 2 WEST MIDLANDS 4078185 59 69122 58 -1 YORKS/HUMBER 3822853 54 70794 54 0
And if we go down that road, won't other countries retaliate with their own measures? This is of considerable concern to me because I am thinking of becoming an immigrant in France. I do speak the lingo, but I don't have anything like that level of income, and I certainly do NOT want to swear an oath of allegiance to Francois Hollande.
France should be entitled to make its own judgment on whether you're a useful addition to their country or not. (I'd also point out that in republics you swear allegiance to the state rather than a particular person. The latter is an absurdity confined to monarchies.)
"Well, indeed. I basically think immigration should be next to impossible if your household earns less than, say, £40k a year, and we should allow virtually open immigration to people earning more than, say, £70k (albeit with requirements of oaths on values, civics tests and English language ability)."
Not sure about that. We would, for example, lose a lot of potentially fantastic R&D expertise if we prevented very well qualifiued immigrants from taking entry level university research jobs.
Sorry, I was talking for a two person household. For a lone individual it would be half that £40k number. But even above that number you should have to be very high skilled.
What about a married genius researcher whose spouse did not work?
If they're that much of a genius researcher, they should be able to command a much higher salary. If you have someone on a £25k salary supporting two adults, they're not going to be able to save enough money to provide for themselves in the event of a job loss.
I'd also point out I said "virtually", so there will be extreme cases I would let in.
"Well, indeed. I basically think immigration should be next to impossible if your household earns less than, say, £40k a year, and we should allow virtually open immigration to people earning more than, say, £70k (albeit with requirements of oaths on values, civics tests and English language ability)."
Not sure about that. We would, for example, lose a lot of potentially fantastic R&D expertise if we prevented very well qualifiued immigrants from taking entry level university research jobs.
Sorry, I was talking for a two person household. For a lone individual it would be half that £40k number. But even above that number you should have to be very high skilled.
What about a married genius researcher whose spouse did not work?
Without commenting on the specifics: any set of rules will have exceptions.
As long as exceptions are much less than the total, that should be accepted.
The persistence of certain media outlets in seeking out the '1 in a 1000' case to interview as representative of the 'problem' drives me up the wall.
Boundaries should be sourced entirely outwith parliament as MPs self interest will always prevail on such matters.
Anyway the table shows a ~5% difference in the electorate size between Lab and Con seats. This is the BIAS in the system, the lower turnout in LAB seats which gives them another advantage I would argue is about the labour vote EFFICIENCY (Not bias).
The combination of the bias (5.5%) and efficiency advantage of Labour ~ 11% yields a ~ 18% advantage in the numbers needed to win a seat. Seats should be reviewed each electoral cycle to ensure there is an even a distribution of the electorate across seats as possible (70,000 electorate for 650 seats maybe ?).
The number of seats should be a seperate argument, though quite why the Lib Dems had in their manifesto to reduce the number of MPs even though this will probably disadvantage them I'll never know...
In summary the Labour advantage is one of both efficiency and bias. The efficiency is something CON can't really do anything about other than trying to improve their own (Measures aimed at improving life in the battlegrounds of the Midlands and the north maybe.) The BIAS (Different seat sizes) should really be kept as low as possible between GEs by an eternal review system that ensures the projected electorate for the next GE is as evenly distributed as possible between all the seats. Reductions to 600 (Or perhaps increases to 700 ?) seats are a matter for voting in the HoC though I don't think increasing the number of MPs would go down at all well.
At any rate boundary reviews should be taken entirely outwith the HoC and performed on a cycle to switch at each GE.
If the 650 seats were evenly distributed around the UK by population, we would get"
Region/Nation population seats averarge new change EAST MIDLANDS 3342019 46 72653 48 2 EASTERN 4276010 58 73724 61 3 LONDON 5265564 73 72131 75 2 NORTH EAST 1954707 29 67404 28 -1 NORTH WEST 5250200 75 70003 75 0 SOUTH EAST 6316817 84 75200 90 6 SOUTH WEST 4012541 55 72955 57 2 WEST MIDLANDS 4078185 59 69122 58 -1 YORKS/HUMBER 3822853 54 70794 54 0
The UK homicide rate is now roughly equivalent to the Western European average and at its lowest level since 1978 But UK violent crime rate is significantly higher than the European average
why is our viloent crime rate so high?
The great news is that it has fallen more rapidly in the UK than anywhere else in Europe over the last 10 years. It's interesting that extreme poverty is cited as the factor most closely associated with violence. As we know, over the period of the last Labour government more people were lifted out of poverty than had been the case previously. That looks like a significant intangible benfit associated with increased welfare spending and one that hopefully the current government will tak enote of. What is also notewothy is that violent crime and murder fell so much at a time of high immigration.
2002 to 2008, there was no change in absolute poverty in the UK, and an increase in those living on under 40% of the median wage (there was not much change in <50% and <60%, although the trend, if anything, was slightly down). The pre-2002 period had seen a much greater fall, but the peak level of crime was in 2002/3 and fell consistently thereafter. The recession reduced real incomes per capita to 2004 levels, but crime has consistently fallen since the recession despite everything that entails about unemployment, pay, and so on.
I haven't had time to read the thread, but wanted to come back quickly on this: apologies if it is repetative
I can never understand the “LAB needs to be doing better in the south” argument. Why?
Mike: it's extremely simple.
The country elects one government. They need to govern for the whole nation. To do that they need to understand and be responsive to the concerns of every part of the country. Sure you can get some of that from pressure groups and local councillors and formal contacts with councils. But there is nothing better for really understanding what is going on than having MPs who are talking to their constituents on a daily basis.
LAB needs to be doing better in the South - and the Tories in Scotland and the urban North - because it will make them a better government.
Not everything is about winning elections, as too many political obsessives often forget. It's what you do when in office, how you serve the country and her people, that matters.
RT @Lawrence_Miles: Trojans to sue after finding out their name is used to describe infiltrator software: "That was the sodding Greeks," says King Priam.
Winners write history, Priam. Anyway, as Troy was the classic infiltration, it make sense for the instance to give name to the generic. An the Trojans had a piss-poor firewall that couldn't adequately detect malware so it serves them right.
The potential disaster for Labour with doing so badly in the South is that if they're dislodged from their heartlands (say SNP starts winning lots of Westminster seats/Scottish independence) then they're coming from 16.6% share where they're behind.
The Tories may not be doing well where they're third but 28.4% is a much better starting point to build up from.
And if we go down that road, won't other countries retaliate with their own measures? This is of considerable concern to me because I am thinking of becoming an immigrant in France. I do speak the lingo, but I don't have anything like that level of income, and I certainly do NOT want to swear an oath of allegiance to Francois Hollande.
France should be entitled to make its own judgment on whether you're a useful addition to their country or not. (I'd also point out that in republics you swear allegiance to the state rather than a particular person. The latter is an absurdity confined to monarchies.)
May I remind you, Socrates, that HMQ doesn't actually rule, she in fact reigns!
The UK homicide rate is now roughly equivalent to the Western European average and at its lowest level since 1978 But UK violent crime rate is significantly higher than the European average
why is our viloent crime rate so high?
The great news is that it has fallen more rapidly in the UK than anywhere else in Europe over the last 10 years. It's interesting that extreme poverty is cited as the factor most closely associated with violence. As we know, over the period of the last Labour government more people were lifted out of poverty than had been the case previously. That looks like a significant intangible benfit associated with increased welfare spending and one that hopefully the current government will tak enote of. What is also notewothy is that violent crime and murder fell so much at a time of high immigration.
2002 to 2008, there was no change in absolute poverty in the UK, and an increase in those living on under 40% of the median wage (there was not much change in
Extreme poverty is the issue.
What we know is that the UK became a much more violent place as poverty levels rose in the 80s and 90s. When poverty rates started to fall, so did violent crime. There is quite a nice correlation there if you look at it over a 30 year time period.
"Well, indeed. I basically think immigration should be next to impossible if your household earns less than, say, £40k a year, and we should allow virtually open immigration to people earning more than, say, £70k (albeit with requirements of oaths on values, civics tests and English language ability)."
Not sure about that. We would, for example, lose a lot of potentially fantastic R&D expertise if we prevented very well qualifiued immigrants from taking entry level university research jobs.
Sorry, I was talking for a two person household. For a lone individual it would be half that £40k number. But even above that number you should have to be very high skilled.
What about a married genius researcher whose spouse did not work?
Without commenting on the specifics: any set of rules will have exceptions.
As long as exceptions are much less than the total, that should be accepted.
The persistence of certain media outlets in seeking out the '1 in a 1000' case to interview as representative of the 'problem' drives me up the wall.
More to the point - surely we should have systems that are flexible enough to make exceptions. A blanket ban on immigration involving households which have incomes of less than £40,000 would make us a much less attractive destination for some very talented people who could make a real difference.
I've compiled the census returns to show something about the overall demographic trends.
As between 2001 and 2011, there has been an increase in the proportion of people in the age groups typically associated with violent crime (exc. homicide). The groups in decline are 30-44.
"Well, indeed. I basically think immigration should be next to impossible if your household earns less than, say, £40k a year, and we should allow virtually open immigration to people earning more than, say, £70k (albeit with requirements of oaths on values, civics tests and English language ability)."
Not sure about that. We would, for example, lose a lot of potentially fantastic R&D expertise if we prevented very well qualifiued immigrants from taking entry level university research jobs.
Sorry, I was talking for a two person household. For a lone individual it would be half that £40k number. But even above that number you should have to be very high skilled.
What about a married genius researcher whose spouse did not work?
Without commenting on the specifics: any set of rules will have exceptions.
As long as exceptions are much less than the total, that should be accepted.
The persistence of certain media outlets in seeking out the '1 in a 1000' case to interview as representative of the 'problem' drives me up the wall.
More to the point - surely we should have systems that are flexible enough to make exceptions. A blanket ban on immigration involving households which have incomes of less than £40,000 would make us a much less attractive destination for some very talented people who could make a real difference.
All a matter of balance. If the administrative cost of an 'exceptions committee' is outweighed by the benefit of those excepted, then it's a no-brainer. Otherwise: tough cookies; every system has some losers.
And you need to factor in those who will inevitably try and 'game' the system in those calcs, and the negative press for the inevitable inconsistencies that such a committee will throw up.
"Well, indeed. I basically think immigration should be next to impossible if your household earns less than, say, £40k a year, and we should allow virtually open immigration to people earning more than, say, £70k (albeit with requirements of oaths on values, civics tests and English language ability)."
Not sure about that. We would, for example, lose a lot of potentially fantastic R&D expertise if we prevented very well qualifiued immigrants from taking entry level university research jobs.
Sorry, I was talking for a two person household. For a lone individual it would be half that £40k number. But even above that number you should have to be very high skilled.
What about a married genius researcher whose spouse did not work?
Without commenting on the specifics: any set of rules will have exceptions.
As long as exceptions are much less than the total, that should be accepted.
The persistence of certain media outlets in seeking out the '1 in a 1000' case to interview as representative of the 'problem' drives me up the wall.
More to the point - surely we should have systems that are flexible enough to make exceptions. A blanket ban on immigration involving households which have incomes of less than £40,000 would make us a much less attractive destination for some very talented people who could make a real difference.
All a matter of balance. If the administrative cost of an 'exceptions committee' is outweighed by the benefit of those excepted, then it's a no-brainer. Otherwise: tough cookies; every system has some losers.
And you need to factor in those who will inevitably try and 'game' the system in those calcs, and the negative press for the inevitable inconsistencies that such a committee will throw up.
The loser in this case being us. A top class researcher always has plenty of destinations to choose from.
"Well, indeed. I basically think immigration should be next to impossible if your household earns less than, say, £40k a year, and we should allow virtually open immigration to people earning more than, say, £70k (albeit with requirements of oaths on values, civics tests and English language ability)."
Not sure about that. We would, for example, lose a lot of potentially fantastic R&D expertise if we prevented very well qualifiued immigrants from taking entry level university research jobs.
Sorry, I was talking for a two person household. For a lone individual it would be half that £40k number. But even above that number you should have to be very high skilled.
What about a married genius researcher whose spouse did not work?
Without commenting on the specifics: any set of rules will have exceptions.
As long as exceptions are much less than the total, that should be accepted.
The persistence of certain media outlets in seeking out the '1 in a 1000' case to interview as representative of the 'problem' drives me up the wall.
More to the point - surely we should have systems that are flexible enough to make exceptions. A blanket ban on immigration involving households which have incomes of less than £40,000 would make us a much less attractive destination for some very talented people who could make a real difference.
All a matter of balance. If the administrative cost of an 'exceptions committee' is outweighed by the benefit of those excepted, then it's a no-brainer. Otherwise: tough cookies; every system has some losers.
And you need to factor in those who will inevitably try and 'game' the system in those calcs, and the negative press for the inevitable inconsistencies that such a committee will throw up.
The loser in this case being us. A top class researcher always has plenty of destinations to choose from.
Again: all a matter of balance. Omelet, eggs. A system which admits an additional 10,000 unskilled workers to ensure we get an additional semiconductor researcher is not worth it. In this case we 'win'. See? [NB: numbers exaggerated to make a point!]
The UK homicide rate is now roughly equivalent to the Western European average and at its lowest level since 1978 But UK violent crime rate is significantly higher than the European average
why is our viloent crime rate so high?
The great news is that it has fallen more rapidly in the UK than anywhere else in Europe over the last 10 years. It's interesting that extreme poverty is cited as the factor most closely associated with violence. As we know, over the period of the last Labour government more people were lifted out of poverty than had been the case previously. That looks like a significant intangible benfit associated with increased welfare spending and one that hopefully the current government will tak enote of. What is also notewothy is that violent crime and murder fell so much at a time of high immigration.
2002 to 2008, there was no change in absolute poverty in the UK, and an increase in those living on under 40% of the median wage (there was not much change in
Extreme poverty is the issue.
What we know is that the UK became a much more violent place as poverty levels rose in the 80s and 90s. When poverty rates started to fall, so did violent crime. There is quite a nice correlation there if you look at it over a 30 year time period.
What measure of poverty is the right one for this?
The real absolute incomes of the poorest tenth went slowly but fairly steadily 1979-10. The crime rate went up and down massively in that time.
"Well, indeed. I basically think immigration should be next to impossible if your household earns less than, say, £40k a year, and we should allow virtually open immigration to people earning more than, say, £70k (albeit with requirements of oaths on values, civics tests and English language ability)."
Not sure about that. We would, for example, lose a lot of potentially fantastic R&D expertise if we prevented very well qualifiued immigrants from taking entry level university research jobs.
Sorry, I was talking for a two person household. For a lone individual it would be half that £40k number. But even above that number you should have to be very high skilled.
What about a married genius researcher whose spouse did not work?
Without commenting on the specifics: any set of rules will have exceptions.
As long as exceptions are much less than the total, that should be accepted.
The persistence of certain media outlets in seeking out the '1 in a 1000' case to interview as representative of the 'problem' drives me up the wall.
More to the point - surely we should have systems that are flexible enough to make exceptions. A blanket ban on immigration involving households which have incomes of less than £40,000 would make us a much less attractive destination for some very talented people who could make a real difference.
All a matter of balance. If the administrative cost of an 'exceptions committee' is outweighed by the benefit of those excepted, then it's a no-brainer. Otherwise: tough cookies; every system has some losers.
And you need to factor in those who will inevitably try and 'game' the system in those calcs, and the negative press for the inevitable inconsistencies that such a committee will throw up.
The loser in this case being us. A top class researcher always has plenty of destinations to choose from.
Again: all a matter of balance. Omelet, eggs. A system which admits an additional 10,000 low-paid workers to ensure we get an additional semiconductor researcher is not worth it. In this case we 'win'. See?
Only if you believe it is beyond the wit of man to devise a system that can distinguish between a highly qualified post-graduate and someone with no qualifications.
"Well, indeed. I basically think immigration should be next to impossible if your household earns less than, say, £40k a year, and we should allow virtually open immigration to people earning more than, say, £70k (albeit with requirements of oaths on values, civics tests and English language ability)."
Not sure about that. We would, for example, lose a lot of potentially fantastic R&D expertise if we prevented very well qualifiued immigrants from taking entry level university research jobs.
Sorry, I was talking for a two person household. For a lone individual it would be half that £40k number. But even above that number you should have to be very high skilled.
What about a married genius researcher whose spouse did not work?
Without commenting on the specifics: any set of rules will have exceptions.
As long as exceptions are much less than the total, that should be accepted.
The persistence of certain media outlets in seeking out the '1 in a 1000' case to interview as representative of the 'problem' drives me up the wall.
More to the point - surely we should have systems that are flexible enough to make exceptions. A blanket ban on immigration involving households which have incomes of less than £40,000 would make us a much less attractive destination for some very talented people who could make a real difference.
You're arguing with a straw man. Nobody said anything about a blanket ban.
Operation Elveden: Duncan Larcombe, John Hardy, Claire Hardy and Tracy Bell to be charged
Alison Levitt, QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), oversees CPS decision making and all potential prosecutions in relation to the ongoing phone hacking investigations and other related matters.
Ms Levitt said:
"This statement is made in the interests of transparency and accountability to explain the decisions reached in respect of cases arising from Operation Elveden, which is the Metropolitan Police Service investigation into allegations involving the unlawful provision of information by public officials to journalists.
Duncan Larcombe, John Hardy and Claire Hardy
"Following a careful review of the evidence, we have concluded that Duncan Larcombe, John Hardy and Claire Hardy should be charged with a conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.
“Duncan Larcombe was employed as Chief Royal Correspondent at The Sun, John Hardy served as a Colour Sergeant based at the Royal Military Training Academy in Sandhurst and Claire Hardy is his wife.
"It is alleged that from 10 February to 15 October 2008, 34 payments were made to either John Hardy or Claire Hardy totalling over £23,000 for stories relating mainly to the Royal Family or matters at Sandhurst.
"Well, indeed. I basically think immigration should be next to impossible if your household earns less than, say, £40k a year, and we should allow virtually open immigration to people earning more than, say, £70k (albeit with requirements of oaths on values, civics tests and English language ability)."
Not sure about that. We would, for example, lose a lot of potentially fantastic R&D expertise if we prevented very well qualifiued immigrants from taking entry level university research jobs.
Sorry, I was talking for a two person household. For a lone individual it would be half that £40k number. But even above that number you should have to be very high skilled.
What about a married genius researcher whose spouse did not work?
Without commenting on the specifics: any set of rules will have exceptions.
As long as exceptions are much less than the total, that should be accepted.
The persistence of certain media outlets in seeking out the '1 in a 1000' case to interview as representative of the 'problem' drives me up the wall.
More to the point - surely we should have systems that are flexible enough to make exceptions. A blanket ban on immigration involving households which have incomes of less than £40,000 would make us a much less attractive destination for some very talented people who could make a real difference.
You're arguing with a straw man. Nobody said anything about a blanket ban.
Fair enough. I read "next to impossible" as basically meaning that. But if you are arguing about a general principle with flexibility then, of course, that is different.
RT @robbyyy: @DouglasCarswell The worrying thing is that the EU no longer seems to be about the people. Its now just about the project & keeping it alive
If there were enough British people to serve my cappucinos the immigrants wouldn't be here in the first place. And of course they do it so much better than the locals.
As for making a 'useful contribution', I don't make one here and would make even less of one in France. Can't be having that as a qualification.
If I was Cameron/May, I would put Abu Qatada on a plane back to Jordan today and take the consequences. Lots of handwringing, 15% poll boost
Wouldn't that be contempt of court?
Yes. Rare that I agree with BenM but he's right on this one.
The government cannot be above the law and nor can anyone else be. If the law is an ass, it needs changing, not ignoring. If the judges' interpretation of the law is perverse and contrary to the intentions of the legislators, then that too can be addressed using the political channels.
Ed Miliband needs to be very careful about this George Galloway stuff. It's seemingly quite a trivial story, but it's one of those stories that could reverberate for a long time, especially juxtaposed with David M leaving for America and the warnings from the Blairites.
Ed Miliband has done quite a bit since 2011 to shake off the "Red Ed" tag, but if this Galloway endorsement gets into the public consciousness it could all be for nought.
Unless Ed Miliband doesn't want to shake it off and really does believe the UK is ready to elect it's first Socialist wing government since 1974?
Maybe Mike S could do an examination of the polling to see whether the country has moved left on economic matters as Ed Miliband seems to think? My perception is that the public is still pretty much right of center when it comes to the economy, but perhaps I'm wrong?
I've compiled the census returns to show something about the overall demographic trends.
As between 2001 and 2011, there has been an increase in the proportion of people in the age groups typically associated with violent crime (exc. homicide). The groups in decline are 30-44.
Thanks Grandiose. That's an interesting little graph.
I think the overall pattern is of an increase in average age but I am struck by how small the changes are over the decade in question. That would suggest that at most, age is very minor contributor to the very large reduction in crime and violence over the period. That would throw more of the emphasis on the other causes they identify, namely:
i) policing technology ii) alcohol reduction iii) rising real wages due to the introduction of the minimum wage
I've compiled the census returns to show something about the overall demographic trends.
As between 2001 and 2011, there has been an increase in the proportion of people in the age groups typically associated with violent crime (exc. homicide). The groups in decline are 30-44.
Thanks Grandiose. That's an interesting little graph.
I think the overall pattern is of an increase in average age but I am struck by how small the changes are over the decade in question. That would suggest that at most, age is very minor contributor to the very large reduction in crime and violence over the period. That would throw more of the emphasis on the other causes they identify, namely:
i) policing technology ii) alcohol reduction iii) rising real wages due to the introduction of the minimum wage
Or maybe people are just getting more sensible.
Or maybe the figures are massaged?
Genuine question, can anyone find Govt/BBC statistics that showed that the public arent worried enough about crime/it is generally going up?
Kayte Rath reporting on PMQs for BBC News - Live Text.
1229: Sandra Osborne wants the PM to back open caste mining in Scotland. He says he wants to support "all industries, including the coal mining industry".
If I was Cameron/May, I would put Abu Qatada on a plane back to Jordan today and take the consequences. Lots of handwringing, 15% poll boost
Wouldn't that be contempt of court?
Yes. Rare that I agree with BenM but he's right on this one.
The government cannot be above the law and nor can anyone else be. If the law is an ass, it needs changing, not ignoring. If the judges' interpretation of the law is perverse and contrary to the intentions of the legislators, then that too can be addressed using the political channels.
One of the things that is ingrained in the 'legal' mentality is the absolute wall that anything relating to 'torture' contains. Even to the point where if one person's evidence that MAY have been obtained by torture then if this could be used to prevent say a nuclear attack even in those circumstances it is wrong to use it. Certainly in any civilised society it should have an extremely high value but perhaps marginally lower than it currently does.
Oh dear. I know there is a reality distortion zone around what happened in Stafford amongst many Labour supporters on here, but it's a shame that's extended to the top of their party.
And the Welsh NHS is failing, and that's being run by Labour.
Let's remember the extent of the reality distortion zone. According to BenM the following is just 'shoddy treatment':
The stories behind the harm are staggering. An old man forced to stay on a commode for 55 minutes wearing only a pyjama top; a woman whose legs were “red raw” because of the effect of her uncleaned faeces; piles of soiled sheets and vomit bowls left at the end of beds, a woman arrived at 10am to find her 96-year old mother-in-law “completely naked… and covered with faeces… It was in her hair, her nails, her hands and on all the cot sides… it was literally everywhere and it was dried.
Another woman who found her mother with faeces under her nails asked for them to be cut, but was told that it was “not in the nurses’ remit to cut patients’ nails”.
This blasé attitude will just lead to it all happening again.
i) policing technology ii) alcohol reduction iii) rising real wages due to the introduction of the minimum wage Or maybe people are just getting more sensible.
Those violent demographics are the childhood lead pollution cohorts.
Kayte Rath reporting on PMQs for BBC News - Live Text.
1229: Sandra Osborne wants the PM to back open caste mining in Scotland. He says he wants to support "all industries, including the coal mining industry".
Too many multiculturalism and diversity lessons at school it would appear.
Is she a Hindu ? Anyway to her question..
As we've discussed before I don't believe the Government is blocking anything to do with open pit mining, perhaps through 'Green' disincentives maybe ? I'd agree with the MP's sentiment - private open mining pits in Scotland all round, though I fear her argument is with the NIMBYs and greens rather than the Gov't.
kiranstacey @kiranstacey PM claims "I, like everyone else, have benefitted from rise in income tax threshold." Not true. #PMQs
Not the sharpest tool in the box is he.
There are two ways he may have benefited. If his taxable income falls below the threshold for withdrawal of personal allowances due to pension or charitable deductions or in more generic ways. Everyone in the country benefits from increased incentives for the low paid to be in work rather than on the dole and income tax thresholds are important in setting these incentives right.
i) policing technology ii) alcohol reduction iii) rising real wages due to the introduction of the minimum wage Or maybe people are just getting more sensible.
Those violent demographics are the childhood lead pollution cohorts.
You really think it's that simple, EiT?
They didn't have lead pollutants in other countries?
I've compiled the census returns to show something about the overall demographic trends.
As between 2001 and 2011, there has been an increase in the proportion of people in the age groups typically associated with violent crime (exc. homicide). The groups in decline are 30-44.
Thanks Grandiose. That's an interesting little graph.
I think the overall pattern is of an increase in average age but I am struck by how small the changes are over the decade in question. That would suggest that at most, age is very minor contributor to the very large reduction in crime and violence over the period. That would throw more of the emphasis on the other causes they identify, namely:
i) policing technology ii) alcohol reduction iii) rising real wages due to the introduction of the minimum wage
Or maybe people are just getting more sensible.
Or maybe the figures are massaged?
Genuine question, can anyone find Govt/BBC statistics that showed that the public arent worried enough about crime/it is generally going up?
None of these allow for the fact that this is a trend internationally in the developed world. It maybe for a variety of reasons including the drop in unwanted children in the late sixties and early seventies due to contraception and abortion, leading to fewer young delinquents.
Just one amongst many possible causes that affect all developed countries to a grater or lesser extent.
Into day 5 of canvassing - enjoyed the shout from a group of teens: "We're all voting Tory. We want to alienate ourselves." And most appropriate doormat message, none of that wimpy Welcome stuff:
"YOU AGAIN?"
General impression: Labour vote stable at 2011 level (we won the 2011 local elections in my area). Tory vote soft and Kipping at the edges. LibDems down to personal vote.
They didn't have lead pollutants in other countries? "
The UK (along with the rest of Europe who hadn't already done so) banned TEL in 2000. Countries that banned it earlier e.g. Germany show a small decrease, but there is a massive increase in Luxembourg (which was presumably the same date).
However there are other factors - for instance density of cars in urban areas which would have to be considered - so I would say 'not proven'
Comments
Drug use, at least in part. And that's decreasing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280
Anyway the table shows a ~5% difference in the electorate size between Lab and Con seats. This is the BIAS in the system, the lower turnout in LAB seats which gives them another advantage I would argue is about the labour vote EFFICIENCY (Not bias).
The combination of the bias (5.5%) and efficiency advantage of Labour ~ 11% yields a ~ 18% advantage in the numbers needed to win a seat. Seats should be reviewed each electoral cycle to ensure there is an even a distribution of the electorate across seats as possible (70,000 electorate for 650 seats maybe ?).
The number of seats should be a seperate argument, though quite why the Lib Dems had in their manifesto to reduce the number of MPs even though this will probably disadvantage them I'll never know...
In summary the Labour advantage is one of both efficiency and bias. The efficiency is something CON can't really do anything about other than trying to improve their own (Measures aimed at improving life in the battlegrounds of the Midlands and the north maybe.)
The BIAS (Different seat sizes) should really be kept as low as possible between GEs by an eternal review system that ensures the projected electorate for the next GE is as evenly distributed as possible between all the seats.
Reductions to 600 (Or perhaps increases to 700 ?) seats are a matter for voting in the HoC though I don't think increasing the number of MPs would go down at all well.
At any rate boundary reviews should be taken entirely outwith the HoC and performed on a cycle to switch at each GE.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/scottish-currency-to-be-mickle-or-bawbee-2013042466579
http://order-order.com/2013/04/22/the-indy-pol-ed-ukip-and-the-six-year-old-guardian-quote/
I'd also point out I said "virtually", so there will be extreme cases I would let in.
As long as exceptions are much less than the total, that should be accepted.
The persistence of certain media outlets in seeking out the '1 in a 1000' case to interview as representative of the 'problem' drives me up the wall.
In fact quite why does it have 40 seats. It hardly has the 'area' issues that Scotland does with one or two of its Highland/Island seats.
I can never understand the “LAB needs to be doing better in the south” argument. Why?
Mike: it's extremely simple.
The country elects one government. They need to govern for the whole nation. To do that they need to understand and be responsive to the concerns of every part of the country. Sure you can get some of that from pressure groups and local councillors and formal contacts with councils. But there is nothing better for really understanding what is going on than having MPs who are talking to their constituents on a daily basis.
LAB needs to be doing better in the South - and the Tories in Scotland and the urban North - because it will make them a better government.
Not everything is about winning elections, as too many political obsessives often forget. It's what you do when in office, how you serve the country and her people, that matters.
The Tories may not be doing well where they're third but 28.4% is a much better starting point to build up from.
Dave's demeanour would suggest a triple dip
http://www.telez.fr/index.php/photos/l-image-du-jour/3
What we know is that the UK became a much more violent place as poverty levels rose in the 80s and 90s. When poverty rates started to fall, so did violent crime. There is quite a nice correlation there if you look at it over a 30 year time period.
But you can have £5000 with me if you like???
If the NHS is the envy of the world why have so few countries copied it?
NHS safe in Labour's hands - Cameron doesn't believe it, does Ed?
More tractor stats than usual.
Ed getting a surprisingly firm kicking over this subject.
Dave very defiant and assertive, George looking depressed, I would expect a negative figure tomorrow
Silly boy. Cameron right on top of his brief re numbers and Wales.
Ed Balls stony faced and still in his seat.
As between 2001 and 2011, there has been an increase in the proportion of people in the age groups typically associated with violent crime (exc. homicide). The groups in decline are 30-44.
Graph here: http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9122/demographictrend2001201.png
And you need to factor in those who will inevitably try and 'game' the system in those calcs, and the negative press for the inevitable inconsistencies that such a committee will throw up.
The real absolute incomes of the poorest tenth went slowly but fairly steadily 1979-10. The crime rate went up and down massively in that time.
He has got Lansley the scalpel right next to him.
Ed to take note that Labour must avoid attacks on the NHS.
After Stafford and Wales, nothing they say will convince.
Operation Elveden: Duncan Larcombe, John Hardy, Claire Hardy and Tracy Bell to be charged
Alison Levitt, QC, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), oversees CPS decision making and all potential prosecutions in relation to the ongoing phone hacking investigations and other related matters.
Ms Levitt said:
"This statement is made in the interests of transparency and accountability to explain the decisions reached in respect of cases arising from Operation Elveden, which is the Metropolitan Police Service investigation into allegations involving the unlawful provision of information by public officials to journalists.
Duncan Larcombe, John Hardy and Claire Hardy
"Following a careful review of the evidence, we have concluded that Duncan Larcombe, John Hardy and Claire Hardy should be charged with a conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office.
“Duncan Larcombe was employed as Chief Royal Correspondent at The Sun, John Hardy served as a Colour Sergeant based at the Royal Military Training Academy in Sandhurst and Claire Hardy is his wife.
"It is alleged that from 10 February to 15 October 2008, 34 payments were made to either John Hardy or Claire Hardy totalling over £23,000 for stories relating mainly to the Royal Family or matters at Sandhurst.
Isn't it a pre-requisite of being in the EU ?
RT @BBCLouise: David Cameron says it's a week in which Ed Miliband said goodbye to David and hello to George Galloway #pmqs
We had discounted it.
Could be overcome with retrospective legislation.
But for the greater good
RT @robbyyy: @DouglasCarswell The worrying thing is that the EU no longer seems to be about the people. Its now just about the project & keeping it alive
Lol!
If there were enough British people to serve my cappucinos the immigrants wouldn't be here in the first place. And of course they do it so much better than the locals.
As for making a 'useful contribution', I don't make one here and would make even less of one in France. Can't be having that as a qualification.
I'd be Stateless.
The government cannot be above the law and nor can anyone else be. If the law is an ass, it needs changing, not ignoring. If the judges' interpretation of the law is perverse and contrary to the intentions of the legislators, then that too can be addressed using the political channels.
Ed Miliband has done quite a bit since 2011 to shake off the "Red Ed" tag, but if this Galloway endorsement gets into the public consciousness it could all be for nought.
Unless Ed Miliband doesn't want to shake it off and really does believe the UK is ready to elect it's first Socialist wing government since 1974?
Maybe Mike S could do an examination of the polling to see whether the country has moved left on economic matters as Ed Miliband seems to think? My perception is that the public is still pretty much right of center when it comes to the economy, but perhaps I'm wrong?
I think the overall pattern is of an increase in average age but I am struck by how small the changes are over the decade in question. That would suggest that at most, age is very minor contributor to the very large reduction in crime and violence over the period. That would throw more of the emphasis on the other causes they identify, namely:
i) policing technology
ii) alcohol reduction
iii) rising real wages due to the introduction of the
minimum wage
Or maybe people are just getting more sensible.
Genuine question, can anyone find Govt/BBC statistics that showed that the public arent worried enough about crime/it is generally going up?
California? Can't bet on the internet.
Ireland? Begorrah!
Ed Miliband needs a soundbite of his own, and soon."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100213680/pmqs-the-labour-party-or-the-welfare-party-ed-miliband-needs-a-soundbite-of-his-own-and-soon/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
1229:
Sandra Osborne wants the PM to back open caste mining in Scotland. He says he wants to support "all industries, including the coal mining industry".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22278075
Too many multiculturalism and diversity lessons at school it would appear.
One of the things that is ingrained in the 'legal' mentality is the absolute wall that anything relating to 'torture' contains. Even to the point where if one person's evidence that MAY have been obtained by torture then if this could be used to prevent say a nuclear attack even in those circumstances it is wrong to use it. Certainly in any civilised society it should have an extremely high value but perhaps marginally lower than it currently does.
Oh dear. I know there is a reality distortion zone around what happened in Stafford amongst many Labour supporters on here, but it's a shame that's extended to the top of their party.
And the Welsh NHS is failing, and that's being run by Labour.
Let's remember the extent of the reality distortion zone. According to BenM the following is just 'shoddy treatment': This blasé attitude will just lead to it all happening again.
You can't choose as a government the rules you choose to follow.
The appointment of Mr Letta, currently deputy leader of the centre-left Democratic Party, could see the end of two months of parliamentary deadlock."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22278038
As we've discussed before I don't believe the Government is blocking anything to do with open pit mining, perhaps through 'Green' disincentives maybe ? I'd agree with the MP's sentiment - private open mining pits in Scotland all round, though I fear her argument is with the NIMBYs and greens rather than the Gov't.
They didn't have lead pollutants in other countries?
http://www.murdermap.co.uk/Investigate.asp
Just one amongst many possible causes that affect all developed countries to a grater or lesser extent.
"YOU AGAIN?"
General impression: Labour vote stable at 2011 level (we won the 2011 local elections in my area). Tory vote soft and Kipping at the edges. LibDems down to personal vote.
They didn't have lead pollutants in other countries? "
The UK (along with the rest of Europe who hadn't already done so) banned TEL in 2000. Countries that banned it earlier e.g. Germany show a small decrease, but there is a massive increase in Luxembourg (which was presumably the same date).
However there are other factors - for instance density of cars in urban areas which would have to be considered - so I would say 'not proven'