Tories: Soft on Crime - Soft in the head

As a sitting magistrate, I generally do not like to comment on "Crime and Punishment" issues.
I do not want in anyway to compromise (or give the impression) my impartiality and independence.

However, figures put out by the Tory Shadow Home Secretary alleging that violent crime had risen sharply under Labour, and their subsequent rebuttal by Sir Michael Scholar (chair of the UK Statistics Authority), I feel, needs a comment.

I don't mind when politicians get it wrong, we all do, but by giving an exaggerated picture of the "growth" of violent crime up and down the country, they are playing fast and loose with the public's feeling of security and safety, and indeed wrongly worsening their perception of "broken Britain", for party political gain.

Which brings me to a story about BoJo (Mayor of London, Court Jester to the Court of King Cameron) wanting to cut the number of police officers by 500-ish in the capital, despite him campaigning for election on making crime-fighting his top priority.

This would be the first major cut in police numbers in London since policing was devolved a decade ago.

You simply cannot have the wannabe Tory Home Secretary stoking up people's fears about violent crime on the one hand, and the most powerful elected Tory reducing police numbers on the other.

They are a shambles, and should not be allowed to to ru(i)n the country after the next general election.

Spending cuts should be based on economic indicators, not Tory dogma

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has produced a report today saying that there is still massive uncertainty over the outlook for the British economy.

It is critical that the Government has a plan to tackle the public finances which is flexible enough to adapt to the changing economic situation.

The IFS rightly points out that cutting spending further this year would be extremely dangerous given the weakness of the economy.

Not surprisingly, the Tories are now desperately trying to play down their desire to do just that.

When, and by how much, public spending needs to be cut must be based on economic indicators, not Tory political dogma.

Não se muda já como soía

And if there had been more of the world, They would have reached it.

So wrote Luís de Camões in the 16th century in the Lusiads, an epic poem celebrating the voyages of Vasco de Gama in Homeric fashion.

The Lusiads are Portugal's national epic, much in the way as Virgil's Aeneid, Ferdowi's Shahnameh, or indeed Homer's Odyssey

Blowin' in the wind...

It is fifty years now since PM Harold Macmillan, at a speech in Cape Town, said, “The wind of change is blowing through this continent. Whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact”.

This speech at the time, and since, has always been used as an example of the pragmatic attitude of the "modern" Conservative party.

For me however, the key phrase is "Whether we like it or not", of course, we like it!

Amandla!

The Hills Report on Equality in Britain

I really am at a loss as to explain how the Tories are going to fix this "Broken Britain" they keep banging on about.But then again, I'm not alone, it seems that they don't either.

They vacillate between Senna the Soothsayer in Up Pompeii ("Woe, Woe, and thrice Woe") and Private Frazer in Dad's Army ("We're doomed") to merrily chanting "Here we go gathering cuts in May, On a cold and frosty morning".

As we know when you have cuts in the public sector, unless done sensitively, and not swingeingly, it is those at the bottom end of society who disproportionately suffer most.

The Hills report "An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK" shows that the richest 10% are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10%.

Are the Tories going to set this right? Are they heck as like. They started the trend with Mrs Thatcher.

Lib Dem policies of raising the tax threshold to £10k, and the "mansion tax" on properties over £2m will benefit four million poorer people and pensioners.

What do the Tories propose? A tax cut for the RICHEST 3,000.

Get your priorities right, eh?

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Today marks the day when slavery was officially abolished in the United States.

President Lincoln was concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation would be seen as a temporary war measure and so the amendment was a means of guaranteeing the permanent abolition of slavery.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

The US has been, is, and can be capable of achieving great things in the name of freedom, but when it gets it wrong...

Today we should celebrate!

Is Cameron really Winnie the Pooh?

A. A. Milne who created all the creatures of Hundred Acre Wood, seems to have been a prescient political commentator.
In The House at Pooh Corner written in 1928, we read the following exchange.
"I've got a sort of idea", said Pooh at last, "but I don't suppose it's a very good one".
"I don't suppose it is either", said Eeyore.

Now all you have to do is replace Pooh with Cameron and Eeyore with the British electorate, and you'll see what I mean.

The poor man is desperately caught between saying what he thinks he needs to to get elected, and needing to say what he must to keep the rabid-right in his own party happy.

Actually, I've got it he's Edward Scissorhands good-looking misunderstood boy who has to "cut, cut, cut" despite himself.