Alan Johnson is a Labour politician I respect. Well, I used to. But what are we to make of a politician who comes out with a sentence like this...
"It is clear that David Cameron doesn't care about fighting crime."*
How crass and puerile can you get? He's clearly being advised by someone who has attended the Ed Balls School of Spin. Would even David Cameron's worst enemy believe he doesn't care about fighting crime? I very much doubt it.
This is yet another sign of the desperate tactics Labour will resort to over the coming months.
* p4 Daily Telegraph, 20 Jan
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
30 comments:
Let's be fair Iain and use the full quote. Alan was saying that in Dave's promised huge spending cuts he won't guarantee to keep bobbies on the beat:
Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, accused the Conservatives of failing to guarantee police numbers.
"It's clear David Cameron doesn't care about fighting crime," he said. "In his draft crime manifesto, there is not one word on protecting police numbers.
Well the question is - does Johnson care about 'fighting crime'? If so, what is he going to do about it? So far he's not been very successful, has he?
Surely Conservative spinners could turn such a remark on its' head?
By which I mean counter "David Cameron doesn't..." with "Gordon Brown hasn't..."
For example "Labour may say that David Cameron doesn't care about fighting crime, but the truth is that Gordon Brown hasn't supported the Courts by his policy of allowing Prison Governors to set criminals* free from prison vans before they've even left the courthouse!"
* people who have been sentenced to 4 weeks imprisonment.
good contribution Stuart
Another Dale post thats fallen on its a**
next
'Lets be fair' Bruce - Darling has just been promising massive tax cuts. Where do the police figure in that?
The reality is that labour are never fair. You know they are lying when they open their mouth (bit like timeshare salesmen).
And I really do grow tired of Iain constantly protesting disappointment at labour politicians he used to respect. Please do get it into your head - none of them are worthy of respect.
The Labour Party have for the umpteenth time totally shafted our country, the only difference this time is that thanks to the totally incompetent and useless Gordon Brown they have made a really good job of it. How can you respect people who have stood silently by and let it happen.
BTW
if anyone is thinking of hiring an architect out there I suggest you do not use the firm RMJM - they have incredibly just given a job to Fred Goodwin.
Respect Alan Johnson?
Are you kidding?
http://bit.ly/7AVZCD
@ Stuart Bruce, Wolfstar
So you equate 'police numbers' with 'fighting crime'?
How? And why?
OK, maybe we need to establish what we understand 'fighting crime' actually to mean, but I understand that we now have more police (and I include ancillaries and PCSOs) per capita than in our entire history. Yet 'crime' continues to increase.
Is it possible that the vast tranche of criminalising legislation brought forward by this government during the past thirteen years has led to overcrowding of prisons, increases in crime figures - despite the blatant manipulations of sentencing and accounting?
If that is so then it speaks volumes for the competence of NuLab. If not, then how does this 'government' account for this state of affairs? Is it really their position that the entire British nation has gone on some sort of escalating crime spree for a whole decade?
Stuart Bruce, In deed, let's be fair and say that the rest of what he says doesn't undermine my point in the slightest. As you well know. It was a crass thing for any politician to say about another politician. Everyone cares about cutting crime. But everyone has different ways of doing it.
@ trevorsden
Take a close look at RMJM's contracts over the next six months. Then you'll understand the connection, I think.
More crass war tactics from Labour.
A pretty stupid sort of remark even for a Labour politician. I cannot see why, when addressing the absurd criminality of the Labour 13 year spending orgy, Cameron should have to detail who goes and who stays, what goes and what stays.
The only really vital thing for the country now is to make sure that Labour goes.
Then we can get the keys, pin numbers and bank statements. Then we can set about financial repair.
Of course the rest of what Johnson said doesn't undermine your post Ian. You're absolutely right.
Labour's negative campaigning tactics are a disgrace, and clearly show the levels they're prepared to go to to cling on to any shred of power they possibly can.
It's Labour's proliferation of a permissive society and hence societal breakdown that has us scared to walk out of our front door (or home from work in the case of poor Asha Maneer); or scared to defend ourselves in our own home (if we're fortunate to still live in it )
The way those words roll out of the mouth of Alan Johnson is sick-making. The words 'pot' and 'kettle' spring to mind!
What has Johnson done to deserve any respect?
I wonder at watch stage in political life do you start saying inane things like that without feeling your face reddening?
New website campaign calls for four-year
fixed term government to deal with a hung parliament. A hung parliament has been suggested as a good way to overcome the economical crisis.
For the first time in over 30 years, there is a strong possibility that a General Election will
result in no party having overall charge of Parliament. At the same time the grave
continuing economic and fiscal crisis will be the major issue facing our government.
Around half of recent opinion polls put a hung parliament as a possible election result - if
current voting intentions, as given to the pollsters, are translated into the number of MPs
each party would have after the election.
Now a non-party group, Charter 2010, has launched a website www.charter2010.co.uk to
promote discussion of how an indecisive election result should be handled by the party
leaders and politicians. Charter 2010 says a hung parliament is “the result no-one wants
to plan for” – and it accuses party politicians of a “conspiracy of silence” on the issue.
Dave doesn't care about fighting crime, or the causes of crime.
Also he drowns kittens, I have seen him do it. In fact, if you vote Labour I can guarantee balls of wool for kittens everywhere.
Iain wht do you not call it what it is. A LIE.
"Stuart Bruce
Let's be fair Iain and use the full quote. Alan was saying that in Dave's promised huge spending cuts he won't guarantee to keep bobbies on the beat:"
Neither can Alan Johnson.
Police numbers are up by 31% since 1997. What about crime? That hasn't dropped has it?
Labour banned handguns in 1997. Handgun crime in 2007/8 was up 58% over 1997/8.
What about the numbers on the street in 1997 as against today? I bet that the current figures are far lower than 1997, even taking the huge increase in police numbers into account.
Iain it's called hyperbole - its usuage is quite common among politicians and even bloggers. Close observers may even find myriad examples in your postings
Presumably the Conservative election slogan will be if you can't say anything nice say nothing at all?
Slow news day?
I too see no reason why you should have any respect for Alan Johnson. When Margaret Hodge for once spoke the truth, about the allocation of resources to immigrants. It was Harman and JOHNSON, who pounced on her calling her a racist to shut her up. No, he is a low piece of work, just like most cabinet members.
I don't know about "desperate tactics", so much as 'no tactics'. It shows that whoever is writing his comments either doesn't have a clue or was in such a rush to get it out that they didn't think about it.
David Cameron should know by now that Labour are well versed in Goebbels mantra that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.
@titus-aduxus
Since you ask the true figures for crime reduction are that since 1997 overall crime is down 39 per cent (more than six million fewer crimes); domestic burglary is down 55 per cent; vehicle-related crime is down 57 per cent; violent crime is down 39 per cent.
One way to "reduce crime" is to reduce the number of crimes.
The single easiest way to do this would be to decriminalise drug possession, and perhaps even open state run (and taxed) premises where people could buy drugs with guaranteed purity, lots of health advice, etc.
At a stroke thousands of crimes would cease to occur at all; criminal networks would be destroyed, plus health problems arising from bad cuts in drugs, overdoses, etc could all be ended.
Until politicians are willing to deal with drugs on a harm reduction basis, none of them are serious about crime.
Much could be learnt from the Scot Brown Campaign in Mass where he overturned a 30 point Democrat lead to capture Ted Kennedy's seat. DC should focus 3/4 top issues like immigration, economy,crime etc.. and keepm on reminding Labour's track record. Bring on Davis in the place of Grayling who is ineffectual.
RMJM say he is to deal with their overseas contracts.
Personally it would not matter to me if he was dealing with their contracts on the moon. It is a crass appointment of an imbecile who has ruined one company by his stupidity and arrogance and cost the taxpayers a fortune.
Not one single person should award RMJM a contract ever again.
Re todays PMQs.
Fabricant asked a question about a leaking dam in his constituency. A fair question, but all he got back off Brown was a cheap jibe. Over on Coffee House Fabricant points out that he had given Brown advance notice of his point, but still Brown could not care less and went on to make his crass and tendentious political point.
As Fabricant says, Brown in truly dysfunctional.
Stuart Bruce astounded me with his claim that crime had been reduced so greatly. I really had to check with National Statistics. That showed the violent crime was considerably up since 2002 - the figures readily accessible do not reach further back.
The drop in vehicle related crime is not a function of increased police activity but simply emerges from the fact that all vehicles sold in the UK since 2002 have transponder anti-theft devices. Modern vehicles are stolen only by illegal access to the keys, by loading the cars onto low loaders and physically transporting them away or by car-jacking from a driver with the keys.
Drug and drink related crimes are considerably up over the same period.
Perhaps the ONS is wrong?
Post a Comment