22 05 2017

Manchester, England

Over/under on how many hours it will be until the mainstream media run its first article fretting about an Islamophobic backlash?

An Important Point for Posterity (And for the Benefit of Lyda)

22 05 2017


AR just ran a story about potential personnel cutbacks in the London Metropolitan Police Service (“The Met” aka “Scotland Yard”).

I commented:

Just the fact that there will be fewer cops will be constantly used as an excuse, a crutch, to pawn the blame off the increasing crime rates.

Pay attention to the news: It happens all the time. Urban politicians will, among other convenient consequence-free taboo-free blowback-free excuses that they spout, rely on the “bawk not enough cops” or “bawk we need more cops” bromides. Yes, Lyda Krewson, I’m looking at you, too.

The reason why it’s nonsense relates to a concept that economists, accountants, auditors, financeers and other business types know so well: Relevant Range.

If there were zero beat cops, and it was understood that there were none, then that would actually cause violent crime to go through the ceiling. If there were twice as many cops as there are civilians in London, and the cops didn’t have to worry about civil rights provisions, then of course that would cause violent crime to fall through the floor. However, here in the real world, those two scenarios are outside the relevant range of reality. (Say that 20 times in a row really quickly.) In reality, there will be a certain minimum number of cops on the London Metropolitan Police Service, because of politics, and there will be a certain maximum number of cops on the same Service, because of budgetary concerns. And, they will generally be subject to some wise and some unwise constraints on their ability to wield power and force.

It is my assessment that, no matter the number of London cops that there are, the number will always be within the relevant range of neither being able to cause violent crime by being too low or prevent violent crime by being too high. To put it another way, here in the real world of London circa the current year, violent crime is going to be what it’s going to be, and caused by the various factors that cause it, and the precise number of cops won’t make any difference either way.


May Uses April For June

18 04 2017


No way to work July into this?

I know what she’s doing:  She’s striking while the iron is hot.  Labour is quickly becoming a joke, and while UKIP is still polling well, May is publicly claiming that the main reason she’s calling this snap election is to help her accomplish the very thing which is UKIP’s raison d’etre.  She wants to use the form of a national election to ice both, one for a long time, and the other forever, to consolidate a larger Westminster majority around herself.

Google’s Fault

23 03 2017


I knew they’d find someone or some thing to pawn the blame off on.

Shot and Chaser

22 03 2017


SHOT:  “We’re not clear about a motive.”

CHASER:  “We’re worried about an Islamophobic backlash.”

Reports of Their Demise

25 01 2017

Stoke-on-Trent, England

Greatly exaggerated.

The conventional wisdom after Brexit is that the UKIP’s successful political crusade, the raison d’etre of the whole party, would make the party redundant, it would be a victim of its success.

You’ll remember I predicted after Brexit that TPTB would delay, stall and distract until enough people took their eyes off the ball such that nobody would be angry when the formal Brexit procedures never took place, a much easier row to hoe for Remain after the British Supreme Court’s ruling this week.

What I think this means is that if UKIP is still viable and in fact gaining steam, enough to pick off a pretty solid Labour constituency, then enough British voters have made the scam.

An older piece of conventional wisdom about UKIP, which had already been destroyed in the May 2015 country-wide Parliamentary elections, is about to be wrecked asunder even further:  As you can read, the polling suggests that 81% of people who will vote UKIP and Paul Nuttall are former Labour voters.  The old conventional wisdom was that UKIP only bottom fed off the Tories.  What 2015 showed us is that UKIP can and does bleed off of any other established party, because then, it bled off of Tories, Labour and even the Liberal Democrats (remember them?).

An Infinite Supply of Time

24 01 2017


Like I’ve been saying.

Delay delay delay, stall stall stall.  And keep on delaying and stalling until people get tired of it, people quit paying attention, people move on to other things, and nobody notices much less gets angry when Brexit never formally occurs.

And now, the British Supreme Court (a relatively new institution, btw) has made this tactic a hell of a lot easier, by decreeing that Brexit has to be an active and overt Parliamentary action.