Diane Abbott's Agonising Interview Over Cost of Labour's Police Policy

[James Harris]

Oh dear!

This is Nick Ferrari's car-crash interview with Diane Abbott, in which
she simply didn't know how much Labour's policy to add 10,000 more
police officers would cost.

The Shadow Home Secretary was speaking to Nick Ferrari to announce
Labour's new plan for police and crime ahead of the General Election.

But when asked how much the policy would cost, Ms Abbott said: "Well,
erm... if we recruit the 10,000 policemen and women over a four-year
period, we believe it will be about £300,000."

Nick queried the amount: "£300,000 for 10,000 police officers? What are
you paying them?"

Ms Abbott tried to clarify: "Haha, no. I mean... sorry. They will
cost... they will, it will cost, erm, about... about £80million."

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/



--
James Harris

[Ophelia]

"James Harris" wrote in message news:oe9ep3$c39$1...@dont-email.me...

James Harris

==

i can't bear to listen to her slimy condescending voice and always switch
off when she is on.


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

[mro...@btopenworld.com]

For the uninitiated, when you include salary, employers NI contributions, leave, overtime, equipment and uniform, civilian support, transport, employers pension contribution, etc. each PC (lowest rank) costs the taxpayer not far shy of £100000 p.a.

that's why you don't see so many of then loitering around the streets as you once did. When they are dashing around in cars and vans you are getting better value for a considerable amount of money.

[abelard]

all socialists are thick and innumerate...and anyway it's not her
money...
even start wages are about £20,000 and approaching twice that
if you hang around and stay a plod
https://www.metfriendly.org.uk/services/police-finance-information/police-pay/

and then there are uniforms, pensions, canteens, cars, offices,
overtime etc...

£80 million would mean £8000 a year for ten thousand..


then the dope goes on:-

Ms Abbott said: "We get to that figure because we anticipate
recruiting 25,000 extra police officers a year at least over a period
of four years and we're looking at what average police wages are
generally, but also specifically police wages in London."

[Omega]

Dianne Abbott? Probably one of the thickest MPs' we have of any party.

omega

[Andy Walker]

On 02/05/17 10:00, mro...@btopenworld.com wrote:
[James Harris:]

>> But when asked how much the policy would cost, Ms Abbott said: "Well,
>> erm... if we recruit the 10,000 policemen and women over a four-year
>> period, we believe it will be about £300,000."

Rule of thumb [has been for many years!] is that a middle-ish
career costs a million pounds in current real terms. That *used* to
be all-in, but over time, it's gone down to merely salary, with all
the other things [office space, support staff, ...] extra, and not a
particularly high salary at that. Anyway, it lets you put some sort
of value on a life's work.

On that basis [but see below], 1 policeman for 40 years is a
million; so is 10 for 4 years; and so 10K for 4 years is £1bn.

>> Nick queried the amount: "£300,000 for 10,000 police officers? What
>> are you paying them?"
>> Ms Abbott tried to clarify: "Haha, no. I mean... sorry. They will
>> cost... they will, it will cost, erm, about... about £80million."

As Abelard mantras, she is innumerate.

> For the uninitiated, when you include salary, employers NI
> contributions, leave, overtime, equipment and uniform, civilian
> support, transport, employers pension contribution, etc. each PC
> (lowest rank) costs the taxpayer not far shy of £100000 p.a.

Indeed; which would make the cost "not far shy of" £4bn.
Perhaps, however, they are proposing not entirely new PCs, but a
re-branding? Re-label some of the PCSOs and civilian support staff
as PCs [or, to avoid the need for extra training and powers, simply
as "police"], and you could get your 10K extra "police" at almost no
expense.

Slightly OT: As a small child, SWMBO asked her father what
a millionaire was. "Someone who has a million pounds." "Yes, but
what does that mean?" "It means you have enough money that you
never have to work again, and that your money grows faster in the
bank than you can spend it." No longer! It now represents any
couple with a modest house in a leafy suburb outside London and
their pension pots [after, not replacing, their careers!] Or a
rabbit hutch in central London. It's no longer unusual, and it
no longer implies "rich", except in politics-of-envy-speak.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Andy Wainwright]

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:11:18 AM UTC+1, James Harris wrote:

From my experience Labour have a better record with tackling crime. It's a shame that in the coalition the Home Sec post didn't go to the LibDems, because they have the better policies of the two parties.

Blunkett's idea for a new rank of police officer between special and regular was actually a big success, providing more visible presence and the all important eyes and ears.

Tories are hampered with their approach to law and order by not being able to define a criminal properly due to inherent prejudice. Similarly, there's a certain racist element on the right that gets in the way of sensible migration controls.

The liberal approach is about restricting criminal law to acts involving a third party, where the first party is the offender and the second the state. This type of law is what the public really want, only the power crazed/brainwashed want to criminalise the actions of consenting adults in private.

[Andy Wainwright]

With the EU exit, we really need a good written constitution. There's also the impact of large scale snooping. Wouldn't it be a beacon of a truly democratic state to make any action of consenting adults in private outside the realm of the government? Make each citizen the true king of their own castle?

[Mark, Devon]

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 9:11:18 AM UTC+1, James Harris wrote:

It was an appalling set of responses from Abbott. She really should have thrown one of her 'sickies'. Seems to me we have some very useless people at the top of politics these days...Cameron couldn't get his immigration figures right, Boris prattled on about £350m extra for the NHS. What a sorry bunch!

[MM]

On Tue, 2 May 2017 09:11:12 +0100, James Harris
<james.h...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

I watched the start of an interview on, as I recall, Sky News with
Diane Abbott and I started counting. How many seconds would it take
before she puts her foot in it. I got as far as 90, and bingo! In
spades. She floundered. She started getting strident in that "Abbotty"
way she's practised for so many years.

The woman is a total liability to Labour's election hopes, but it's
too late to shift her now.

MM

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com