How are YOU voting?

[Mr D]

Hmmm... tactical voting.
Turns out we have MRLP standing where I am registered to vote. Had to look in the paper at the candidates - none of the local ones have been round knocking on doors while I'm awake.
MRLP - Monster Raving Looney Party.
Haven't seen them stand for years, still fondly remember when much younger being given sweets by one of their candidates - chocolate gold coins!
Bread cast upon the waters....

 

[Mr D]

Not removing 20,000 serving police officers.

Ah here we go. Knew I'd seen this somewhere.
The current police numbers? Similar to the 90s. A few percent down on the early 90s.
Did we manage in the 90s? Yes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1717038.stm

How about something more recent from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies?
https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/falling-police-numbers-longer-view

 

[Newchodge]

Doesn't matter if we managed in the 90's. We are not managing in the 201's

 

[Mr D]

Doesn't matter if we managed in the 90's. We are not managing in the 201's

Crime is up overall?

 

[quikshop]

Well, whatever your crackpot bleeding heart silly socialist (Cobby?) ranting loonie far right raving centrist limp-wristed wishy washy liberal nasty globalist elitist environmental views are... GO AND VOTE

 

[STDFR33]

Ah here we go. Knew I'd seen this somewhere.
The current police numbers? Similar to the 90s. A few percent down on the early 90s.
Did we manage in the 90s? Yes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1717038.stm

How about something more recent from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies?
https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/resources/falling-police-numbers-longer-view

Population in 1990: 57.25m
Population in 2010: 62.77m

The larger the population, the larger resources you need.

 

[The Byre]

Tomorrow has been declared national lemming day.

Always amazes me how subservient the British nation is, a great tribute to our education system.

Nah! That was the day of the Brexit vote - hey, one million lemmings can't all be wrong!

As for our educational system - don't get me started. I've just come back from a meeting with other business people and education was one of the topics.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Population in 1990: 57.25m
Population in 2010: 62.77m

The larger the population, the larger resources you need.

This.

The number of officers might be down slightly, but it's down dramatically in terms of police officers per 100,000 of the population.

As populations grow, so must public services. The same applies to the NHS, fire service, civil service and pretty much anything else.

The fact the number of officers is even close to the level it was 25 years ago is shocking. Just imagine if we had a 90s-sized NHS today.

 

[Mr D]

Population in 1990: 57.25m
Population in 2010: 62.77m

The larger the population, the larger resources you need.

And the crime rate in 2015 compared to 1990s?

 

[KM-Tiger]

As populations grow, so must public services. The same applies to the NHS, fire service, civil service and pretty much anything else.

Indeed.

But it's got to be paid for somehow. Do you know of any stats on population growth vs tax revenue growth?

 

[STDFR33]

And the crime rate in 2015 compared to 1990s?

The stats say that crime is declining. But that data is not to be relied upon.

For example, for some crimes you are now given an 'incident number' and not a 'crime number'.

Take a look at prison population for a better view on crime:
1993: 44,246
2016: 85,134

But crime has fallen apparently.

 

[Mr D]

The stats say that crime is declining. But that data is not to be relied upon.

For example, for some crimes you are now given an 'incident number' and not a 'crime number'.

Take a look at prison population for a better view on crime:
1993: 44,246
2016: 85,134

But crime has fallen apparently.

So which stats should be relied on if not using the official stats?

Prison population is a large chunk of short timers? So we can say that the police and courts are doing a good job.
And while in prison officially they are not committing crimes in the community.

 

[Mr D]

Indeed.

But it's got to be paid for somehow. Do you know of any stats on population growth vs tax revenue growth?

Not so much tax revenue growth but how much is spent on other things.
Can have a cut in tax rate and increase in tax growth - but if spending an extra £100 billion on a contract dispute its not spent on policing. Or on the body that does keep an eye on terrorists (which is not the police!).

 

[STDFR33]

So which stats should be relied on if not using the official stats?

Prison population is a large chunk of short timers? So we can say that the police and courts are doing a good job.
And while in prison officially they are not committing crimes in the community.

The prison population is a fact. A number of people held in HM prisons at a particular point in time.

I've already given an example of how crime rates are fudged.

 

[Ian J]

So which stats should be relied on if not using the official stats?

I don't think that any stats relating to crime can be trusted unless they relate to specific crimes eg knife crime

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Indeed.

But it's got to be paid for somehow. Do you know of any stats on population growth vs tax revenue growth?

According to OECD data, the tax revenue per capita in dollars:

1990 - $6,281 of tax per person

2015 - $14,393 of tax per person

The 1990 figure adjusted for inflation is about $12,800.

This means that, despite population growth, the Government makes a little bit more per capita than it did back then.

This will be mostly down to GDP growth. Tax as a percentage of GDP was 31.96%. Today it's 34.27%.

Adjusted for inflation, GDP per capita is also roughly the same. The population grows, but so does the economy, GDP and tax receipts along with it in a per capita sense.

 

[Mr D]

I don't think that any stats relating to crime can be trusted unless they relate to specific crimes eg knife crime

You think all knife crime gets reported?

 

[Jeff FV]

Statistics need to be treated with caution.

Last year (2016) saw a 20% increase in the homoicide rate in the UK, quite a damming indictment, until you look behind the figures at the cause of the increase.

At the conclusion of the Hillsborough inquest in April last year, the 96 victims were reclassified as unlawfully killed, and added to that year's statistics, despite it occurring some 27 years earlier.

Statistics are great (my students sat their A Level module exam in it yesterday) but you've got be careful how you use them.

 

[Ian J]

Last year (2016) saw a 20% increase in the homoicide rate in the UK,

Is homoicide the murder of gay men

 

[Mr D]

Is homoicide the murder of gay men

Could be the murder of others by gays?

 

[DontAsk]

Last year (2016) saw a 20% increase in the homoicide rate in the UK, quite a damming indictment, until you look behind the figures at the cause of the increase.

At the conclusion of the Hillsborough inquest in April last year, the 96 victims were reclassified as unlawfully killed, and added to that year's statistics, despite it occurring some 27 years earlier.

Similar thing happened after Dr Shipman's killings were recorded.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

For the first time in my life, I genuinely have no string enough opinion and I don't like this. I don't want to waste the vote, but tactical voting seems somehow wrong?

There is nothing wrong with tactical voting. There is also nothing wrong in voting for the person and not the party. What is perhaps wrong is not engaging with your candidates and not knowing your MP.

Democracy depends on volunteers to help run campaigns. Get involved.

 

[Cobby]

As I said a few posts up we'll see exactly how much of a car crash Mrs May is in 48 hours time

*awkward silence*

It could have been worse for her but I mean, there are crash test dummies that watched and felt relief after last night. Theresa the Appeaser, having lied about calling an election, called an election and then lost the position of power she already had. Even though technically still drawing the most seats, "Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory," goes the phrase?

 

[Cobby]

Diane Abbott sidelined because she is a car crash - replaced by someone who voted Corbyn out because she felt he was useless - shifting allegiances.

What a mess, I cannot believe that they are a possible Government.

Yeah, it's so weird that a member of their party, cognizant of her illness potentially affecting her ability to do her job, recused herself and she was replaced by someone who wasn't a sycophant toward the party Leader?

They may not be unified in their ideologies, but their methodology is quite reasonable, especially compared to the Conservatives who put party above country time and time again.

Well, whatever your crackpot bleeding heart silly socialist (Cobby?) ranting loonie far right raving centrist limp-wristed wishy washy liberal nasty globalist elitist environmental views are... GO AND VOTE

Just for the record I'm socially liberal and fiscally centrist.

 

[Newchodge]

As I said a few posts up we'll see exactly how much of a car crash Mrs May is in 48 hours time

I think that counts as a multiple vehicle pile up on the motorway, rather than a slight rear-end shunt at a roundabout.

 

[Ian J]

I think that counts as a multiple vehicle pile up on the motorway, rather than a slight rear-end shunt at a roundabout.

I agree. The Conservatives ran a truly awful election campaign and hopefully they will have learnt from their mistakes so that if/when we have the next election they will run a campaign that doesn't jar with their core support

 

[Newchodge]

I agree. The Conservatives ran a truly awful election campaign and hopefully they will have learnt from their mistakes so that if/when we have the next election they will run a campaign that doesn't jar with their core support

I reckon the next election will be early October.

The trouble is that the tories have alienated many of their supporters and winning them back won't be easy with May as leader. So someone else has to take the poison chalice. Boris Johnson is stupid enough and arrogant enough to take it on. But he will have to deny many of the policies that May has proposed, which, of itself, will be hard. In the meantime those who thought Corbyn was unelectable have been proved wrong and that may increase his support, and the Blairite wing of the party, with the exception of Chris Leslie, has realised how much they have been working against their own selfish interest, so there should be less in-fighting.

We live in interesting times.

Could I also just say KENSINGTON!

 

[Cobby]

In the meantime those who thought Corbyn was unelectable have been proved wrong

By him not getting elected?

 

[Newchodge]

By him not getting elected?

He was elected with the biggest majority ever in Islington. Michael Foster the Labour party donor who financed the court attack on Corbyn standing for the second leadership election stood against him in Islington so people could vote for real Labour. Foster got 208 votes Corbyn got over 40,000. I call that getting elected.

Seriously though, if you look at the figures in the closest seats, he would have had the chance to be PM with other party support, if the party has about 2,300 more votes in the right seats.

 

[Clinton]

Seriously though, if you look at the figures in the closest seats, he would have had the chance to be PM with other party support, if the party has about 2,300 more votes in the right seats.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/12/theresa-may-just-400-votes-short-majority/

 

[Newchodge]

Yes, but Labour was supposed to lose 100 odd seats and the Tories were supposed to get a huge majority. In terms of success within that expectation, May did not really come very close, even if she had got those additional 401 votes that the Telegraph talks about. Cobby and I were discussing Corbyn's electability.

 

[Alan]

I prefer the theory that May deliberately threw the election, but failed to lose. By losing, it would have left Labour in the Brexit negotiating seat - as the EU won't let Brexit be a success as it would set a bad example - the 'failure' of Brexit would then be on Labour's head, hence in 5 years Conservative get re-elected.

I expect another GE before the negotiations get to a head, so the Labour can 'win' the poisoned chalice. The winner loses. Long game strategy

 

[Newchodge]

I prefer the theory that May deliberately threw the election, but failed to lose. By losing, it would have left Labour in the Brexit negotiating seat - as the EU won't let Brexit be a success as it would set a bad example - the 'failure' of Brexit would then be on Labour's head, hence in 5 years Conservative get re-elected.

I expect another GE before the negotiations get to a head, so the Labour can 'win' the poisoned chalice. The winner loses. Long game strategy

Thank you. That was exactly the point of this thread.

EDIT: Whoops, wrong thread. I mean the 'Does May want to win' thread.

 

[quikshop]

I'm socially liberal and fiscally centrist.

Oxymoron

 

[ffox]

I prefer the theory that May deliberately threw the election, but failed to lose. By losing, it would have left Labour in the Brexit negotiating seat - as the EU won't let Brexit be a success as it would set a bad example - the 'failure' of Brexit would then be on Labour's head, hence in 5 years Conservative get re-elected.

That's an amazing piece of conspiracy theory. Maybe NiFi are really Greys morphed into (sub) human appearance?

 

[Cobby]

Oxymoron

Heh, given the rhetoric in today's media and political forums, it's easy to believe that's true.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Seriously though, if you look at the figures in the closest seats, he would have had the chance to be PM with other party support, if the party has about 2,300 more votes in the right seats.

But Labour would not support other progressive parties in seats where they had no chance of winning. Its their own fault they didn't win because offers were made.