Monthly Archives: December 2006

78.96% of Tory bloggers need to check their statistics

by John Ritchie

In British Parliamentary-style debating, a point made by your opposition, regardless of how outlandish or inaccurate it may be, will stand unless you rebut it. I have some sympathy with this rule, as all too often in political debate, parties will make claims and spout rhetoric in the hope that the opposition won’t check the facts. This is very often the case in political campaigns, and is a method that has been employed by the Liberal Democrats for years. The problem perhaps stems from the need for a political campaign to be constantly on the offensive – it is seen as a weakness to be back-footed by your opponents – you need to have your own material. But the need for a good soundbite is never conducive to the debate that we need in order to hammer out the real issues, and expose the spin.

I have had a number of crime figures thrown at me recently on the BUCF blog which have, directly or otherwise, challenged me to respond, whether due to their selectivity and so misrepresentation, or just complete inaccuracy. Let us start with Iron Mike’s article, where he states:

“violent crime has DOUBLED under this government.”

The British Crime Survey begs to differ with Mike, however. In fact, the data on the Home Office Crime Statistics website appears to indicate a huge fall in violent crime since 1997. Another Labour success, I’d say. Mike goes on to say:

“In particular, with the most serious offence- homicide (murder and manslaughter), the number of crimes that have been committed since 1997 has risen by a quarter”

Let’s go back to the Crime Statistics, which show – wait for it – no change in the number of homicides between 1997/98 and 2005/06. In fact, there is a caveat to the data, stating that the figures for 2005/06 were skewed due to the 52 victims of the London bombings. Discounting these victims, there is a significant decrease in homicides from 1997, but in any case it is difficult to see where any increase could come from, let alone a 25% increase. Perhaps Mike has taken his figures from a better or more independent source than the Home Office – the National Daily Mail Crime Figures, perhaps?

The next gauntlet laid down was from prolific Tory blogger, praguetory, who said:

“John R – here’s a selective figure for you. Throughout the whole of the UK robberies with knives rose by 72% last year.”

Praguetory appears to have gleaned his figures from this BBC article. Rather than peeling off the most convenient figure from the article or simply copying the article’s soundbite verbatim, let’s look at the full range of statistics that accompany the article (I’ve put the party of government in square brackets to assist your analysis of whose policies might be succeeding here):

Violent crime in 1995 4,256,000 [Conservative]
Violent crime 2005/6 2,420,000 [Labour]

Interesting – a 43% decrease in violent crime between the last Tory and current Labour governments.

Violent crime involving knives in 1995 340,480 [Conservative]
Violent crime involving knives 2005/6 169,400 [Labour]

This isn’t going well for the Conservatives – more than a 50% drop in violent crime involving knives! Of course the 72% increase in robberies with knives that was originally referred to accounts for only 17,730 of the total violent crimes committed in 2005/06 – or less than one percent of all violent crimes. Not that impressive in my mind any more – but a good negative headline/soundbite when you need it.

praguetory goes on…

“And it’s not just us Tories having a moan. On a recent return to Brum several non-Tories said to me that they can’t recall there ever being as many shootings and knifings in Birmingham as has been reported as late. Can’t wait for you defence of the government on your rejuvenated blog.”

Well, here it is. The Tories can attempt to slate the government’s law and order policies in blind opposition (and without any of their own), and choose to selectively glean figures to suit the matter in hand. A look at the figures from the British Crime Survey tell the real story. This selective gleaning of figures and misreporting helps to do nothing other than cause a mood of panic amongst the public and create a false perception of a crime problem greater than is actually the case. Very much in the interests of an opposition party to create this impression, but certainly not in the interests of community cohesion – but I suppose the Tories never cared much for that. So yes, there may be a perception of an increase in crime which may well prompt people to say there is a big problem – but I think the reasons for that have less to do with the government and more to do with the Tories and their cronies in the right-wing press.

In your reference to Birmingham, as a candidate in the City Council Elections in Birmingham next year, I can see how council policies have a significant effect on community crime levels, not least in the ward I am fighting to represent. You can criticise the government for national crime trends, but local crime needs to be, to a great extent, the responsibility of the local authority and its policies. In answer to your point, therefore, I suggest you have a think about who was in control of Birmingham City Council a few years ago, when things were apparently better, and who has been in control “of late.”

I’ll let you fill in the square brackets yourself this time… good luck.

John Ritchie is Chair of BULS

Memoirs of a bleeding-heart socialist

by John Ritchie

Finding myself in the middle of the season of goodwill, and perhaps having a little more free time on my hands than I do usually, I thought it only right that I should have a read of the BUCF blog. I’ve generally formed the opinion in the past that spending my time reading the inane semi-political ramblings of such has-beens (or never-will-bes) as Deirdre Alden and her team of little Monday-Clubbers is a waste of my time, but reading that the site has supposedly had over 8000 hits makes me wonder whether BUCF are doing something right.

Top of the blog was an article written by my dear political adversary and ex-BUCF Chair, Mike O’Rourke. Mike’s article was an apparent attempt to attack Tony Blair’s “tough on the causes of crime” mantra – it ranted in a way that would make a Daily Mail editor proud (at least for content and selection). Mike starts by telling us of some stories of violent crimes that have touched him over the last few weeks, and I have to say that these stories touched me in a similar way. Where I thought we differed was in our apportionment of blame for this violent crime-ridden society that he portrayed and of which these crimes were apparently indicative. But reading more into the article made me realise I may be on a similar wavelength to my old adversary after all: it made me think of the story of my old friend, who I shall call Jim.

Jim was born in the early 1980s and brought up in a council estate in a strong mining area of Scotland. The people of that area were a proud and hardworking lot – crime was low, and there was a genuine respect for community in Jim’s town. It was similar to many such industrially-dependent areas across the country. Unfortunately, however, things conspired against poor Jim, his family and his fellow proud town people. The government of the day were doing a thoroughly poor job of managing the economy – it resulted in decimation of the mining industry and annihilated the community.Jim remembers the Prime Minister of the day saying there was no such thing as society, and he was beginning to agree, given what he saw happen around him. He also recalls a man called Mr Tebbit coming on TV and telling everyone how his own father “got on his bike and found a job” when he was unemployed. The following day, little Jim looked out of his window and saw all the unemployed people on their bikes (they didn’t have a limousine driving behind them to carry their briefcases), but the unemployed people just cycled and cycled and couldn’t find any jobs. Young Jim realised however, that the levels of unemployment being in excess of 3 million was probably due to the government’s disastrous economic management. Everyone around had no option but to claim benefits to keep their families alive. The sense of pride that sustained the community for decades disappeared over a matter of months – the sense of community had gone and with it came a noticeable erosion of respect.A few years on, just when everyone thought it couldn’t get any worse, Jim watched TV as a gentleman calling himself the Chancellor walked out with a young man called Cameron on a wet Wednesday in 1992 and told the country his government had again mismanaged the UK economy. No one was really sure what this would mean, until young Jim’s family and the people living around him were unable to pay their mortgages because of huge mortgage rates, which reached 15% during the late 80s and were consistently above 10% into the early 90s. People were losing their homes and being forced into derisory living conditions. This, combined with the terrible rates of unemployment, served only to intensify the problems in Jim’s community. The proud and happy community seemed to become increasingly desperate and the lowering in living standards was accompanied by an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour.

Jim will never forget what the policies of that government did to him and his family. He’ll never forget all the terrible people involved. He still remembers that young man called Cameron, who was on TV with the Chancellor in 1992, and helped write the Conservative party’s manifesto for the 2005 General Election. That manifesto listed lots of spending cuts, all of which would run Jim’s community into levels of deprivation he hadn’t seen since the last time the young man Cameron’s party were in power.

This annihilation of these communities seems to fit in nicely with many of Mike’s suggestions as reasons for the increase in violent crime – breakdown in family, drugs and solvent abuse, lowering educational attainment amongst sections of that community, etc. I cannot imagine Jim’s community is too different to (in fact, is probably better than) most inner-city areas whose character and respect is still deficient as a result of the Tory years – perhaps even comparable to the Moss Side Estate, which is the example Mike considers. Of course, and as ever, the argument given by Mike is based on such a pathetically selective use of statistics that it doesn’t stand up to much rigour of debate, but I shall be delighted to fight that in a future blog.

For the time being, take heed of the story of Jim (whose adventures I’m sure will be continued soon – you need to hear about what has improved under the Labour government in Jim’s area – goodness knows where his community would be if the Tories had continued, or if they return) – it serves to remind us that there is only one way to be tough on crime, and that still is to be tough on the causes of crime. The best way to stay tough on the causes of crime?

To keep the Tories out of power.

John Ritchie is Chair of BULS