Saturday, February 16, 2008

Quote of the day

"If National were re-elected and went back to the policies of the 80s and 90s, we would again have increases in violence." Jim Anderton, Friday, February 15, 2008

Posted by at

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

There would be more industrial action as well. What Anderton is saying is that civil unrest is a legitimate tool of the Left to create a "climate" of poor Governance.

9:17 AM
Anonymous said...

This statement provides compelling evidence that Mr Anderton is showing early signs of senile dementia.

12:50 PM
Anonymous said...

Interesting to see the resolution rate has increased substantially under labour. But I thought they were soft on crime? I also seem to remember some change in the definition of violent crime that widened the net a bit. Could be wrong on that one but your party's got a research unit - would you care to check up on that so we can get the whole picture?

1:03 PM
Anonymous said...

A big increase in the violence towards children where resolution rates should be 100% ( but for the Kahui factor).

1:40 PM
Lindsay Mitchell said...

Mike, Given a 16% increase in police numbers since 1999 the resolution rate should increase. It hasn't increased by 16% though.

Regarding the definition of violent crime, I wonder if you are thinking about the introduction of the Domestic Violence Act which includes psychological and emotional abuse as violence although the police can have difficulty in assessing such accusations. The DVA was passed in 1995.

The statistics I blogged are based on the same classes of violent crime since 1999. They are grievous assaults, serious assaults, group assemblies, homicide, intimidation and threats, kidnapping and abduction, minor assaults and robbery.

Minor assaults and homicides are fairly steady. All other categories are up.

1:42 PM
Kevin said...

The unemployment rate has steadily dropped throughout the 2000s according to this government. But the violent crime rate has increased. Unemployment as an underlying cause of crime is now totally discredited.

As are the other so called causes promulgated by the excusers of violent crime since the 1950s

"High density living" - discredited - we have all the problems of the highest density cities in the world, even in our provincial areas

“Not enough facilities” – we have spent megabucks on public facilities to the point they often aren’t used to capacity

“I’m depraved cause I’m deprived” (a la West Side Story) – discredited – the vast majority of so called deprived people are very honest and hate the rise in violent crime as much, if not more than anyone else because they are the vulnerable people in our society.

“they only need a chance” (a la “Twelve angry men”) – was true then when some kids went of the rails – now they are given 30, 40, 100 “chances” and still commit violent crimes.

Even if there is any truth in the excuser’s tales they are only proximate causes of crime, not the ultimate causes.

So who should we see about this? Where should we look for the ultimate causes of crime.

Look no further than the attitudes of people like Jim Anderton himself.

- The lack of personal responsibility for your own actions because there is always an excuse
- The lack of personal responsibility for your own care because there is always the state to care for you
- The lack of sustainability of our country which cannot provide sustainable employment for people, creating a sense of hopelessness and low self worth. Unsustainable NZ because all the money that could be used to make us sustainable and improve lives is used on nefarious, inspirational BS to try to make MPs feel good and to “massage the voters erogenous zones”
- The lack of sustainable industry in this country has meant our social services are unsustainable. Instead the social services are used, cynically, by successive governments as a place to hide unemployment, rather than a place for solving our social problems and thereby putting themselves out of business. (don’t believe me – look at schools – now 18 per classroom where a couple of generations ago the teachers did better with double the number of pupils)

Until the silent NZ majority wakes up to this, nothing will ever change or be solved.

You want to really make a difference Jim?

Then stop telling everyone they are deprived. Stop telling them they haven’t got a chance because of their skin colour, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc just to further your own political career. Use % ethnicity in the statistics and they look very different – and you support withers and dies. Stop perpetuating lies like “high density”, “depravity” and other BS. Be honest for a change. Then you will make a difference to people’s lives.

3:32 PM
Anonymous said...

Mike, Given a 16% increase in police numbers since 1999 the resolution rate should increase. It hasn't increased by 16% though.

That's some good maths you've got there. Following your logic should a 100% increase in police result in a 100% increase in resolution? Hold on, that'd mean crimes being resolved when they weren't even reported...

Anyway kudos to Labour for putting more police on our streets! I have an enduring memory of the police providing a "guard of dishonour" in Bluff for National MPs who were heading to a retreat in Stewart Island. That was in protest of the last National government's cuts to policing budgets. I'd never seen the police protest before that and haven't since. I guess that was before your time in the party, Lindsey but tell me how many extra police would a National government support?

1:22 PM
Lindsay Mitchell said...

Mike, I have never voted National, have never been a National member and don't intend doing or being either.

I accept your criticism of my maths. Given the number of violent crimes keeps rising, comparing police numbers to resolution rates is inconclusive. Analysing the number of crimes resolved per police member shows that the police have become more productive in this area. BUT less so overall. In 1998/99 they were solving 24.2 crimes. Today, with the additional 1154 members, that has dropped to 22.8

In any event my post wasn't a criticism of the police. It was about Mr Anderton's clear inference that violence had decreased under Labour. It hasn't.

8:01 PM
Kevin said...

Anderton's speech is a bit more than that - it could be inteerpreted as a threat that violence will increase if you don't vote for this government.

7:42 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)