They lie because it works
Friday, July 17, 2009
News Rage UK: Home Secretary statement on annual crime statistics.
Fleet Street used to have a drinking culture. Maybe it's hard drugs now? How else can one account for journalists failing to connect the story linked above with the one I blogged about here? If you believe domestic burglary in Britain is down by 54 percent, there is no hope for you. You are destined to live in a Britain of one party government, constantly-exceeded 5 year plans and shortages of everything caused by counter-revolutionary saboteurs.
Last weekend, Mrs P's aged mother asked me to look at a contents insurance proposal for her home. She lives in a Thatcher-privatised house on a council estate oop North. Her renewal is coming up and she had an offer which was going to save her £50. It all seemed fine. The institution was respectable enough and the cover was actually better. But still the premium seemed high to me at 25% of the cost for our own (much higher) cover. Bear in mind that all of her possessions are worth less than one of my wristwatches.
As she has no internet connection, I painfully navigated one of those market comparison sites on my mobile phone. Not only could I not get her a cheaper quote, I couldn't get her one at all. On the basis of her postcode, not one company would offer cover. I didn't alarm her by saying so. I just told her that she should go ahead with her plan. But what does that say about her risk of burglary?
Like his predecessors here, here, here and here, Alan Johnson is lying. He is lying because journalists are too drunk, high or biased to connect his - carefully engineered - statistics with those that contradict them. Mainly he is lying because it works. Sadly, it only works because his electors are lazy fools and he knows it.
Very true. on many subjects, the insurance industry is a better guide to life than any politician. The same is true for bookmakers, if you hear a politician say something is certain or likely, call your bookie and ask for their odds. Chances are their view will be more indicative as their business depends on accuracy.
Posted by: Dick Puddlecote | Saturday, July 18, 2009 at 09:32 PM
Excellent - I'm quoting from this in an upcoming post.
Posted by: jameshigham | Saturday, July 18, 2009 at 01:28 PM
Related to putting two and two together...
Did you see Gordon Brown's performance when asked if extra troops had been requested for the sandpit?
He just would not answer the question. Even when they pointed out a simple yes, or no, would be the best response.
Just waffled on and on...
So that's a "Yes" then?
What is it they say these days juries are entitled to draw conclusions about refusal to answer?
I hope that big jury that gets to sit ever 5 years or so have been paying attention?
Posted by: Moggsy | Friday, July 17, 2009 at 08:13 AM
Bear in mind that all of her possessions are worth less than one of my wristwatches.
Maybe you should offer to insure her for a nominal sum (for pride's sake) if that is the case. Sorry, couldn't resist being a bit facetious.
It seems that property insurance rates are on a decreasing sliding scale, such that those who have the least to insure (and presumably can least afford it) pay disproportionately more for coverage. Renters' insurance especially is usually outrageously expensive for minimal coverage, at least where I live.
I think insurance companies have a lot to answer for as we all pay huge amounts of money to cover some unexpected disaster to one's property, but if one actually has a claim (and they do agree to pay it) one often finds that the premium increases dramatically or even they will refuse to reinsure one.
Good companies to be shareholders thereof methinks and in fact their stocks often do better than the banks.
Posted by: jmb | Friday, July 17, 2009 at 07:27 AM