The Politics Thread 3.0

[Lagamorph]

Is part of it also potentially down to more crimes being reported/fewer crimes going unreported?

[<]:^D]

not saying youre wrong but how would that work? the police are working twice as hard? people suddenly became a lot more conscientious?

[Winckle]

Is part of it also potentially down to more crimes being reported/fewer crimes going unreported?

"So much for recorded crime, but crime we know nothing about is going up as well."

[KK]

The way crimes were registered by police was changed relatively recently because they found that almost a million offences weren't even being logged properly. So, there is a case that we were effectively being given false figures (and it's long been said many people say they feel less safe despite official figures perpetually saying crime is going down), But even so, knife crime and murder is still knife crime and murder. That was always accurately reported (supposedly). You can hardly fudge the murder statistics.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

The way crimes were registered by police was changed relatively recently because they found that almost a million offences weren't even being logged properly. So, there is a case that we were effectively being given false figures (and it's long been said many people say they feel less safe despite official figures perpetually saying crime is going down), But even so, knife crime and murder is still knife crime and murder. That was always accurately reported (supposedly). You can hardly fudge the murder statistics.

Indeed the home office changed the crime recording standards which also altered how some crimes were classified and meant that some things that’s weren’t previously recorded would also now have to be, and new classifications were created, however this didn’t impact on things like murder, robbery etc, so those stats are comparable.

Burglary was completely changed for instance

Prior to April 2017, police recorded burglary offence categories were split such that dwellings (domestic burglary) and buildings other than dwellings (non-domestic burglary) were separately identifiable, where:

domestic burglary covers residential premises, including attached buildings such as garages

non-domestic burglary covers non-residential premises, including businesses and public buildings, as well as non-attached buildings within the grounds of a dwelling, such as sheds and detached garages

From April 2017 onwards a new classification of police recorded burglary was introduced, dividing offences into two categories of “residential” and “business and community”.

[DML]

The latest crime statistics are a complete disaster. Compared to last year: knife crime up 26% (almost half of that in London), sexual offences up 19%, stalking and harassment 36%, violence without injury 21%, with injury 10%, murders at their highest since 2008, acid attacks on the rise...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41677046

I find it hard to work out how anyone can be a Tory supporter at this point.

Take Brexit aside, and what have they done? Ruined the pound, tanked the economy, ruined a generations prospects, cut the NHS, crime on the rise....where is the good? And those are all based on cold hard facts!

The only real arguments that come up time and time again are 'but Corbyn would be worse'. I reckon he would hard pushed to be worse for this country.

[Return_of_the_STAR]

The latest crime statistics are a complete disaster. Compared to last year: knife crime up 26% (almost half of that in London), sexual offences up 19%, stalking and harassment 36%, violence without injury 21%, with injury 10%, murders at their highest since 2008, acid attacks on the rise...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41677046

I find it hard to work out how anyone can be a Tory supporter at this point.

Take Brexit aside, and what have they done? Ruined the pound, tanked the economy, ruined a generations prospects, cut the NHS, crime on the rise....where is the good? And those are all based on cold hard facts!

The only real arguments that come up time and time again are 'but Corbyn would be worse'. I reckon he would hard pushed to be worse for this country.

All Labours fault. They overspent on pens and paperclips in the good times init

[Lagamorph]

In fairness, the Tories haven't 'cut' the NHS, they haven't increased funding enough to keep up with rising costs. It sounds the same but it's an important distinction to make even if the end result is much the same.
The only place the NHS has actually had it's funding specifically cut is in Scotland.

[Moggy]

The latest crime statistics are a complete disaster. Compared to last year: knife crime up 26% (almost half of that in London), sexual offences up 19%, stalking and harassment 36%, violence without injury 21%, with injury 10%, murders at their highest since 2008, acid attacks on the rise...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41677046

I find it hard to work out how anyone can be a Tory supporter at this point.

Take Brexit aside, and what have they done? Ruined the pound, tanked the economy, ruined a generations prospects, cut the NHS, crime on the rise....where is the good? And those are all based on cold hard facts!

The only real arguments that come up time and time again are 'but Corbyn would be worse'. I reckon he would hard pushed to be worse for this country.

When the coalition was going they could argue that they were being prudent by cutting the deficit etc. Whether you agree with that or not, the argument was there that things would improve later on by cutting things now.

Since the end of the coalition though? Ummm, they uhhh…..nope sorry I can’t think of anything.

[Moggy]

In fairness, the Tories haven't 'cut' the NHS, they haven't increased funding enough to keep up with rising costs. It sounds the same but it's an important distinction to make even if the end result is much the same.

If the end result is the same, it is not a very important distinction.

If it costs £xbillion to run the NHS properly and the NHS doesn’t have that funding, then it doesn’t matter whether you call it a cut or a lack of keeping up with rising costs.

[Errkal]

In fairness, the Tories haven't 'cut' the NHS, they haven't increased funding enough to keep up with rising costs. It sounds the same but it's an important distinction to make even if the end result is much the same.

If the end result is the same, it is not a very important distinction.

If it costs £xbillion to run the NHS properly and the NHS doesn’t have that funding, then it doesn’t matter whether you call it a cut or a lack of keeping up with rising costs.

This, Laga's comments are the sort of gooseberry fool that gets used to defend the Tories stelath distruction of the service. "Oh we aren't cutting it, we have actually given it more money" while making sure it doesn't enough so waits get longer, standard slip and people opinions eventually change so they can say "hey look, it isn't working it was great while it lasted but now it is costing you lots an for what, how about we cut it right back and you can spend what you were paying on the NHS with which ever providor you want, you get the choice of where when and how you are treated and you aren't topping up pot o be used by others. Just pay for what you need."

[Lagamorph]

I'm not trying to defend them, but after all the vague half-truths and twisted facts that led to Brexit it's more important than ever that major political facts like this are portrayed accurately.

Saying "The Tories cut the NHS" gives wiggle room for argument against the statement and ultimately there is nothing to back up that precise statement as it stands, because it is factually not true.
Saying "The Tories have not increased NHS funding by enough to meet demand" however does not give that wiggle room and can be easily backed up as factually correct.

[Winckle]

It's not even about demand, they are doing below inflation rises which means it's falling in real terms. I know you understand this because you aren't thick, just a spoiled brat.

[captain red dog]

Yep it's a real terms cut, same as public sector pay being capped at 1%, its a real terms wage cut.

[Lagamorph]

I don't disagree at all, but when it comes to something as important as the NHS it's all about the language used.

If you just say "The NHS has been cut" then places like the Daily Mail can run a headline of "WINCKLE LIES ABOUT NHS" and starts going on about how last year the NHS got £500billion and this year they got £550billion so how can it be a cut?

On the other hand if you say that the NHS got £550billion this year but because of inflation and increased costs they actually needed £600billion to provide the same service then there's no technical rebuttal and they run a headline about Alzheimers/Diabetes/The weather.

When you start using phrases like "in real terms" as a qualifier when talking about cuts then whilst you're correct the general voting public don't get what this means, especially because it's not an easily repeatable soundbite. That's why it's so important to be precise with something like this, and not just lazily throw out a statement about 'Tory cuts to the NHS'.

[captain red dog]

I don't think the general public care about precise language. That's why campaigns always stick to a core slogan, For the many not the few, Strong and Stable, £350m for the NHS ( ).

If it's called a real terms cut I think the public understand that, and if the Tories are the ones that have to resort to a long explanation to perpetuate a lie then at least they are the ones fighting the tide of opinion for once.

[satriales]

As well as it being a real terms cut, saying the NHS has more money doesn't mean much if it all goes to manager salaries, private companies, or agency workers. Not saying it does but it wouldn't surprise me if the Tories still benefited from any 'extra' funding.

[Errkal]

Yeah people get real term cuts, obsfucating it behind "it's underfunded not cut" gives the Tories an out to say "we funded as best we could given the circumstances, hell we gave it but sadly it wasn't enough"

[Lagamorph]

I think you're hugely overestimating the intelligence of the voting public.
The same voting public who voted for Brexit and then for the Tories.

[Moggy]

I think you're hugely overestimating the intelligence of the voting public.
The same voting public who voted for Brexit and then for the Tories.

Who did you vote for in 2015?

Edit:

At the time you said

Conservative. Happy with the job they've done so far and their manifesto seems pretty spot on.

Would that be the manifesto that promised a referendum?