Ah, that tedious and long-debunked canard, the British Crime Survey.

The left are making a hilarious bosh of this election campaign. Keeping all our popular policies and effective campaigns in the news. It’s a joy to behold.

Oh, and when are Labour going to apologise for callously abusing cancer victims for party political gain?

It seems odd that LibCon have failed to comment on the MOST READ STORY ON THE BBC.

@1

But Martin! The Tories are using statistics that are completely incorrect. That’s not really in dispute.

They can argue that the British Crime Survey is wrong, but they haven’t, what they’ve done is use used statistics that are categorically incorrect. As explained above, why don;t you care that your party is lying to the public?

If your case is so strong? If it is so clear that crime is up? If it is so uncontroversial why have the Tory party used utterly inappropriate statistics to make the case?

By the way “tedious and long-debunked canard” I don’t see you providing a link to something to substantiate that. Long-debunked? Well that debunking should positively be at your finger tips.

for callously abusing cancer victims for party political gain?

Nothing wrong with pointing out the obvious to voters is it?

The LibDems have been busy today pointing out that the scale of public sector jobs cuts proposed for this year by the Conservatives and necessary to pay for abandoning the proposed increase in National Insurance charges from April next could generate social unrest:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8614316.stm

“David Cameron’s efficiency chief has told him to cut the public payroll by up to £2bn within a year of the general election, a saving that could lead to the loss of up to 40,000 jobs across the public sector.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/92f40f8c-434a-11df-9046-00144feab49a.html

@2 Martin? Really? More whataboutery? Have you nothing to say on your party lying to voters?

Yes what Labour did was distasteful and wrong, but what is there to add? I don’t know anything that isn’t already out there so what could I write other than “this is bad”. It doesn’t make interesting blogging. In fact, I’ve linked to a discussion of the Labour Leaflet saga in my concluding paragraph, so LibCon have hosted something on it, although granted its somewhat tangential.

Now, an election leaflet repeating lies with a picture of a machete on it, that’s something I can add to.

Tell me Martin, how would you react if Labour despatched a leaflet like this?

I quite want to nip this in the bud before this comment thread strays too far away. You have something to say on Labour leaflet campaign Martin? Blog it. I’ll post it on my blog so long as it adds something new to what we already know.

For example, linked to in my blog is something by MTPT on how parties can sidestep normal advertising laws and that this is bad as it leads to potential cancer suffers getting mailshots. That’s adding value and what blogging is about.

If you have something to add say so, I’ll send you my e-mail address and host whatever you want to write, so long as it adds something and isn’t just about slagging off labour. I mean it.

Wrong.

Comparison of the two datasets is obviously problematic, and Chris Grayling DID mislead the public earlier this year when he said violent crime went up by 70%.

But in March, the House of Commons Library issued a judgment in conflict with the ONS. Comparing the datasets, the ONS estimates that violent crime has gone down 41%. Looking at the same data, the House of Commons Library, whose figures you quote, actually agrees with the new figure the Tories are putting on their literature, that violent crime has gone up 44%.

You can legitimately favour one body over the other, but it’s not as clear-cut as you present here.

Try this report in The Times for an explanation of the divergent statistics based on a change in crime reporting practices introduced in 2002:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7054790.ece

The report in The Times concludes with this:

“But the figure has already been called into question by Sir Michael Scholar. Correspondence released by the UK Statistics Authority yesterday showed that Sir Michael had refused to give Mr Grayling the go ahead to present the new figure as authoritative.

“In a letter sent yesterday, he warned Mr Grayling that selective quotation of statistics ‘could prove misleading’. He continued: ‘A balanced presentation of an inevitably complex case would refer to all available statistics and the uncertainties and ambiguities which they sometimes reveal.’”

@2

It seems odd that LibCon have failed to comment on the MOST READ STORY ON THE BBC.

(hyperbolic capitals included, even though they give me a headache)

Yeah, LC should post a blog on every top story ON THE BBC. I therefore draw attention to numbers three and six (at current time of writing). Or is the liberal fascist ZaNu Lie-bour “elite” not going to tell us THE TRUTH?!!??

I despair.

@9 The dead munchkin story is now second most read on the BBC.

You going to respond or just let your misrepresentation stand? Cowardly

@11 Crissake, I’m at work. I’ll be looking into this when I can.

Right back and done some reading. Thanks for joining Hyena.

The quarterly crime statistics for the period to June 2008, which were released on 23 October 2008, showed a 22% increase in the number of ‘most serious violence’ offences recorded by the police.

That was from the one published in 2008 also quoted above, the figures are out of date but far below what is quoted on the literature above.

In the example being used here the total recorded crime index is calculated to be 81.4 in 2008/09. This means that total recorded crime in England and Wales, adjusted for the changes to crime recording practices, is estimated to be 18.6% lower in 2008/09 than in 1997/98.

From the March 2010 figures. Although of course that refers to crime in general. The change in the recording of figures has led to quite a big gap opening from what is reported by the HoC library and the ONS.

The 44% figure in the leaflet is in my view misleading, but not as misleading as the figures previously bandied about my Chris Grayling which were of course Wire-esque. “Complete nonsense” was an overstatement. “Misleading and dangerous” would have been accurate.

The head of the ONS has expressly said use of those stats “could prove misleading”. From The Times “A balanced presentation of an inevitably complex case would refer to all available statistics and the uncertainties and ambiguities which they sometimes reveal.”

I suppose an election isn’t really a place for nuanced statistical analysis, and a leaflet like that won’t get read. But I do feel the leaflet, with the machete in centre view is misleading. My blog post could have been better qualified, for example the BCS figures could have been offered as a corollary rather than a refutation of the details in the leaflet.

“The” Martin Coxall!? He must be one of the most read politics posts on the BBC!