The NDP's "Boots on the Ground"

[kraychik]

With them criticizing him it makes me like him just a bit more.

It shouldn't. It's a testament to how radical the contemporary left-wing base has become. Mulcair is a full-blown socialist. There is not one aspect of civil society he doesn't want the government to manage or control. Yet somehow he's still not left-wing enough. Reading rabble.ca let's one get a taste of the contemporary left, and the unhinged views of thought-leaders that populate places like the CBC, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, and government bureaucracies.

[marcus]

I'm shocked at your selective quote cherry-picking... shocked I tells ya! You know, the part of that article that speaks to prior commitments made by Harper... and not kept! Like the 100 additional RCMP Harper committed just for Surrey... like the (same) 2500 additional officers Harper committed for communities across Canada... the commitment for which Harper Conservatives failed to provide adequate funding for. How did you miss that in your background reference, hey?

if you're going to take on such a subject you should really do your homework! This is nothing new - Layton made similar pledges in 2011 - NDP pledge aims to stamp out gang-related crime at its source

notwithstanding there are pockets within communities all across Canada that have serious crime... increasing crime, you choose to blindly throw out national crime stats... without actually looking at those stats with any degree of questioning, of any scrutiny whatsoever.

Who cares!!!! As linked by Waldo, all forms of crime have decreased by 23%........if this trend continues for another decade, we should be looking at cutting police officers, not hiring more!!

Election ploy aside and Derek's selective posting and mouth frothing aside; there are some big problems when it comes to a few cities in Canada, including Surrey, B.C.

New statistics released by the Surrey RCMP detachment show that violent crime has climbed in B.C.’s second most populous city over the past year.

Violent crime within the municipality of Surrey roses by seven per cent throughout 2014, and within the fourth quarter crime was up by 52 per cent compared to the same period in 2013.

Harper promised to tackle the same issues that Layton and now Mulcair have talked about, but Harper didn't. Instead, he decided to fund and expand prisons? I guess those powerful private prison lobbyists from the U.S. are looking for expansion.

[Big Guy]

Promising more police is a political ploy used by all parties. It does not work and only creates problems.

A federal or provincial government decides to "pay for the salaries" of 5 more police for Bigguysville. The municipality is forced to hire these new people with the money they have been given for the purpose (many say no thanks and send the money back).

Bigguysville has been hiring the number of police officers that it feels are required to keep Bigguysville up to the standard acceptable by the citizenry. So these 5 new folks are hired. Now the municipality, from its municipal taxes have to cover uniforms, supplies, cars, insurance, disability and a pension plan. That often runs more than the salary of the policeman and the municipality will be on the hook for pension and disability for the life of the hire.

Bigguysville mayor Joe Skeptic says thanks but no thanks for the cops. You wanna help, send money for infrastructure.

[poochy]

With them criticizing him it makes me like him just a bit more.

I agree, but its the same story as it was with Harper, there are some giant loons in his party, how much can he control them, frankly he looks more like a conservative or liberal to me, but those loons in his party are very far to the left, at least with the cpc the anti abortionists or anti gay crowd are still conservatives. There are some ndp supporters, and I suspect candidates who agree with Mulcair on very little.

[poochy]

It shouldn't. It's a testament to how radical the contemporary left-wing base has become. Mulcair is a full-blown socialist. There is not one aspect of civil society he doesn't want the government to manage or control. Yet somehow he's still not left-wing enough. Reading rabble.ca let's one get a taste of the contemporary left, and the unhinged views of thought-leaders that populate places like the CBC, Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, and government bureaucracies.

Idk, Mulcair comes across to me as, if not more of a centrist, then someone interested in power and willing to play whatever role it takes to get him there, which would obviously be a bad thing.

[PIK]

The only police state we have is in ONT, where they are in the governments pocket. And that as proved when a judge ordered the police 3 times to move in on Caledonia. But were ordered not to by their political masters.

[Argus]

Promising more police is a political ploy used by all parties. It does not work and only creates problems.

Both promising police, and actually hiring police work quite well, actually. Promising them gets votes. Hiring them helps fight crime.

[cybercoma]

Idk, Mulcair comes across to me as, if not more of a centrist, then someone interested in power and willing to play whatever role it takes to get him there, which would obviously be a bad thing.

so exactly like Harper then

[kraychik]

Idk, Mulcair comes across to me as, if not more of a centrist, then someone interested in power and willing to play whatever role it takes to get him there, which would obviously be a bad thing.

There is no question that Mulcair is moderating the NDP's appearance (most recently, purging some anti-Israel freak candidates), somewhat, in order to transition it to a national party. He's making it much more urban and less rural. He's taking on faux causes that animate disconnected urban leftists such as "racism", "War on Women", "environmentalism", etc. Still, he is very far to the left in terms of his broader proposals to insert the federal government into all aspects of civil society.

[Argus]

There is no question that Mulcair is moderating the NDP's appearance (most recently, purging some anti-Israel freak candidates), somewhat, in order to transition it to a national party. He's making it much more urban and less rural. He's taking on faux causes that animate disconnected urban leftists such as "racism", "War on Women", "environmentalism", etc. Still, he is very far to the left in terms of his broader proposals to insert the federal government into all aspects of civil society.

What we’re witnessing, in fact, is a realignment that is necessary if the NDP is ever to be a legitimate aspirant for government — and Mulcair knows this. He cannot form a government that includes the radical crazies whose mania about Israel represents a sort of far-left Tea Party that holds sway with the grassroots, but which threatens the party’s legitimacy among general election voters. The “pro-Palestinian” movement, as it now exists, has no place in a progressive political party. Its tactics and positions are antithetical to progressive values.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/pat-johnson-the-ndps-anti-israel-grassroots

[kraychik]

What we’re witnessing, in fact, is a realignment that is necessary if the NDP is ever to be a legitimate aspirant for government — and Mulcair knows this. He cannot form a government that includes the radical crazies whose mania about Israel represents a sort of far-left Tea Party that holds sway with the grassroots, but which threatens the party’s legitimacy among general election voters. The “pro-Palestinian” movement, as it now exists, has no place in a progressive political party. Its tactics and positions are antithetical to progressive values.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/pat-johnson-the-ndps-anti-israel-grassroots

I agree with the thrust of that article. I read it earlier today. I think the author of it reads Reddit Canada.

[cybercoma]

Election ploy aside and Derek's selective posting and mouth frothing aside; there are some big problems when it comes to a few cities in Canada, including Surrey, B.C.

New statistics released by the Surrey RCMP detachment show that violent crime has climbed in B.C.s second most populous city over the past year.

Violent crime within the municipality of Surrey roses by seven per cent throughout 2014, and within the fourth quarter crime was up by 52 per cent compared to the same period in 2013.

Harper promised to tackle the same issues that Layton and now Mulcair have talked about, but Harper didn't. Instead, he decided to fund and expand prisons? I guess those powerful private prison lobbyists from the U.S. are looking for expansion.

I was hoping Derek could figure that out on his own, since Waldo already pointed it out.

Surrey has been the site of its own, out of whack crime wave, recording 36 shootings in the past three months, a situation Mulcair accused Harper of responding to with empty promises

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/montreal-the-moment/it-seems-the-nicer-mulcair-appears-the-more-threatening-he-becomes

[Derek 2.0]

So is crime decreasing, or is the amount of crime actually being reported decreasing?

I have no idea if "unreported crime" is increasing since its not reported........but clearly reported crime has decreased.....hence sans supporting data, I see no reason as to why thousands of more police should be funded.

Derek, I think you have to step back and recognize that just because Mulcair says something that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. More police is actually something many conservatives have been calling for for many years, and something which Harper promised and failed to deliver on. If you wonder at how more police are going to help address crime what would you say to cutting back on the numbers of police? The RCMP slashed their organized crime bureaus and a number of others to the bone to find people to act as security guards on Parliament Hill. I'd kind of like those units restaffed myself.

I'd criticize the policy just as much if it were put forward by the Liberals or the Tories.........You say Harper failed to deliver, perhaps actual crime figures led to a change in policy? I don't know, I don't remember the actual past Tory promise and when it was tossed.

Except that as per the Stats Can victimization survey crime isn't necessarily decreasing, and even at 200 police per 100k pop we still have a low number of police compared to most of our allies.

Who cares? Per this article, there is no direct correlation between the number of police and crime rates

[Derek 2.0]

I was hoping Derek could figure that out on his own, since Waldo already pointed it out.

Surrey has been the site of its own, out of whack crime wave, recording 36 shootings in the past three months, a situation Mulcair accused Harper of responding to with empty promises

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/montreal-the-moment/it-seems-the-nicer-mulcair-appears-the-more-threatening-he-becomes

How are several thousand police officers, spread across the country, going to address the major issues facing Surrey (or any other crap hole) that cause crime, namely poverty and drug addiction? Are you suggesting said "boots on the ground" will clean-up Surrey's Whalley-ring of meth addicts and the mentally ill homeless?

[Argus]

I have no idea if "unreported crime" is increasing since its not reported......

I'm confused about why that would be given that I've just told you, backed up by stats Canada, that the percentage of crime being reported is declining and has been declining for some years now. Thee is no argument that 'police reported crime' as it is termed, is in decline. But given the percentage of crime being reported is declining we cannot say that ACTUAL crime is declining, as you seem intent on doing.

Who cares? Per this article, there is no direct correlation between the number of police and crime rates

Direct correlation? Nobody has said that there is a "direct" correlation. That would suggest that adding X police would cause a decline in crime of X. But the number of police certainly has an impact on both crime and the resolution of investigations. I noted some time ago on this subject, for example, that Ottawa has one of the lowest police to citizen numbers in Canada, and also the lowest crime solution rate of any major city in Canada. I do not believe this is coincidental.

Just because Mulcair likes German Shepherds, that does not suggest you need to denounce German Shepherds, you know.

[Derek 2.0]

I'm confused about why that would be given that I've just told you, backed up by stats Canada, that the percentage of crime being reported is declining and has been declining for some years now. Thee is no argument that 'police reported crime' as it is termed, is in decline. But given the percentage of crime being reported is declining we cannot say that ACTUAL crime is declining, as you seem intent on doing.

Right, but the very same data (I provided) also stated that Canadians outlook on crime hasn't changed......likewise, a decrease in reported crime doesn't directly correlate with an increase in crime. Furthermore, assuming unreported crime is increasing, how are additional police officers going to address crime that is not reported to them, as the majority of policing (as confirmed in the data I linked) is reactionary in nature?

Direct correlation? Nobody has said that there is a "direct" correlation. That would suggest that adding X police would cause a decline in crime of X. But the number of police certainly has an impact on both crime and the resolution of investigations. I noted some time ago on this subject, for example, that Ottawa has one of the lowest police to citizen numbers in Canada, and also the lowest crime solution rate of any major city in Canada. I do not believe this is coincidental.

Huh? So adding additional police won't cause a decline in crime, but the number of police will impact crime? Doublespeak much?

Your assertion runs clearly counter to the above piece I linked to that quoted criminologists saying the exact opposite......

Just because Mulcair likes German Shepherds, that does not suggest you need to denounce German Shepherds, you know.

If Mulcair, Trudeau or Harper likes German Shepherds that's fine, I just don't want to pay for them when they will have little impact on their supposed purpose.

Explain to me how additional RCMP members in a Surrey, playing catch and release with meth addicts and the mentally ill, will impact crime rates to the good?

[Argus]

Right, but the very same data (I provided) also stated that Canadians outlook on crime hasn't changed.....

How is that relevant?

.likewise, a decrease in reported crime doesn't directly correlate with an increase in crime.

I did not suggest it did. I stated that a decreasing reporting percentage left us in a great deal of doubt about whether crime was decreasing. In fact, the last victim's survey showed it hadn't changed. But 'hadn't changed' is not the same as 'decreasing'.

Furthermore, assuming unreported crime is increasing, how are additional police officers going to address crime that is not reported to them, as the majority of policing (as confirmed in the data I linked) is reactionary in nature?

You'd have to examine why crime is unreported. From the people I've spoken to, it's largely because the victims doubt the police would find the person responsible, or would even care enough to look. I mean, if your house is broken into it's not likt the police will show up and dust for fingerprints and interview the neighbours. In all likelihood all they want is for you to file a report. The police don't have the manpower to investigate individual burglaries. Just like the police don't have the manpower to investigate most cases of fraud. Tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars are stolen from the Canada Revenue Agency every year by people filing false tax claims using identify fraud. We didn't report most of it to the RCMP because the RCMP had made it clear to us they did not have the resources to look into it.

Huh? So adding additional police won't cause a decline in crime, but the number of police will impact crime? Doublespeak much?

I said the correlation could not be directly measured. You're being disingenuous here. I have no doubt, however, that adding police would result in less crime in that criminals would tend to get caught more often and put in jail. If you don't have the numbers to investigate crime then the criminals continue on with their career unimpeded by whatever severe sentences the Conservatives continue to propose in various laws.

[Icebound]

No matter how many "boots on the ground" we may need to prevent muggings and drug turf wars .....or how crime has risen or decreased ... there is one stat of which I am pretty certain.

I won't provide a link because there are thousands...just google "Internet fraud" ... and you will find numbers like "70% increase".

this is THE issue of the coming years... It has the potential to devastate families, destroy business, even compromise governments. Not to mention that I am already paying more in fees and taxes for every dollar than some bank, business, or individual loses to fraud...

If you want my "law-and-order" vote, then forget terrorism, street crime, drugs and booze, et.c etc.

Talk to me about your strategy to prevent and combat Online fraud

...

[Derek 2.0]

How is that relevant?

A demonstration on how Canadians feel about crime, despite your suggested "unreported crime wave".

I did not suggest it did. I stated that a decreasing reporting percentage left us in a great deal of doubt about whether crime was decreasing. In fact, the last victim's survey showed it hadn't changed. But 'hadn't changed' is not the same as 'decreasing'.

Right, inversely it doesn't mean "unreported crime" increased, just that Canadians are reporting less crime

You'd have to examine why crime is unreported. From the people I've spoken to, it's largely because the victims doubt the police would find the person responsible, or would even care enough to look. I mean, if your house is broken into it's not likt the police will show up and dust for fingerprints and interview the neighbours. In all likelihood all they want is for you to file a report. The police don't have the manpower to investigate individual burglaries. Just like the police don't have the manpower to investigate most cases of fraud. Tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars are stolen from the Canada Revenue Agency every year by people filing false tax claims using identify fraud. We didn't report most of it to the RCMP because the RCMP had made it clear to us they did not have the resources to look into it.

Has there every been one instance in Canada where the RCMP or other police services have stated they have a surplus of resources? This of course goes back to the previous point (I linked to) that crime rates do not directly correlate with policing staff levels.

I said the correlation could not be directly measured. You're being disingenuous here. I have no doubt, however, that adding police would result in less crime in that criminals would tend to get caught more often and put in jail. If you don't have the numbers to investigate crime then the criminals continue on with their career unimpeded by whatever severe sentences the Conservatives continue to propose in various laws.

It can't be measured? The cited criminologists disagree (with data) with you your opinion.......I'm being disingenuous? I'm the one basing my opinion on both cited data and the opinion of experts, not on some claimed conversations and emotional opinions.........

As I said, what good will further police do playing catch and release with petty criminals, namely drug addicts and the mentally ill, the when the police do pick them up, they are largely released onto the streets in hours.........As such, how are Mulcair's "boots on the ground" going to contend with addiction and the mental illness, both drivers in the majority of crimes committed daily in crap-holes like Surrey?

[Argus]

No matter how many "boots on the ground" we may need to prevent muggings and drug turf wars .....or how crime has risen or decreased ... there is one stat of which I am pretty certain.

I won't provide a link because there are thousands...just google "Internet fraud" ... and you will find numbers like "70% increase".

this is THE issue of the coming years... It has the potential to devastate families, destroy business, even compromise governments. Not to mention that I am already paying more in fees and taxes for every dollar than some bank, business, or individual loses to fraud...

Fraud is largely not investigated in Canada because the police do not have the resources, and because the courts don't really take it seriously. When I worked for Canada Revenue Agency I was monitoring a large increase in identify fraud related tax fraud. People get your information then file your tax claim before you do. We send a refund cheque, and they walk away with it. The usual amount was between $2500-$3900 because these claims are routine and breeze through the system.

I once traced three cheques from three false claims to a Rogers store in Mississauga. I could even view the store on google street view. But no one went to that store to make inquiries. The RCMP didn't have the resources to look into such things, and we didn't have either the resources or the legal power. CRA sends out a growing number of these false refund cheques every year, and only a miniscule number ever get investigated, mainly those that look like part of a large, organized effort.

[Argus]

A demonstration on how Canadians feel about crime, despite your suggested "unreported crime wave".

Your own cite says that the percentage of crime going unreported is rising, but you still keep feeling the need to sneer at the very idea that there is such a thing. Can I make a suggestion? Go back and delete your cite. I'll cite it instead, so you can then argue dismissively against it. It would at least sound less silly than the way you keep dismissing your own cite.

Right, inversely it doesn't mean "unreported crime" increased, just that Canadians are reporting less crime

They are, according to your own cite, reporting crime less often. There is a distinction. The crime is still happening. People are simply not bother to tell the police.

Has there every been one instance in Canada where the RCMP or other police services have stated they have a surplus of resources?

The percentage of police per population in Canada is far lower than in most Western countries. Maybe they don't have a surplus of officers. Maybe if they did they'd be able to investigate fraud.

It can't be measured? The cited criminologists disagree (with data) with you your opinion....

No, they did not. They said there was not a directly measured correlation between numbers of police and crime. Do you think there is no relationship? Should we simply eliminate police departments, then? Because that is basically where you're going. If the number of police has nothing to do with crime then let's close down the departments and save ourselves a lot of money.

Heck, the number of fires probably has nothing to do with the number of firefighters, either. Let's close down the fire departments!]

Edited August 22, 2015 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

Your own cite says that the percentage of crime going unreported is rising, but you still keep feeling the need to sneer at the very idea that there is such a thing. Can I make a suggestion? Go back and delete your cite. I'll cite it instead, so you can then argue dismissively against it. It would at least sound less silly than the way you keep dismissing your own cite.

I know what it says, I cited it.........but you citing something would be a first, so by all means.

They are, according to your own cite, reporting crime less often. There is a distinction. The crime is still happening. People are simply not bother to tell the police.

So more police will address this how?

The percentage of police per population in Canada is far lower than in most Western countries. Maybe they don't have a surplus of officers. Maybe if they did they'd be able to investigate fraud.

Who cares???? I bet the police per population is greater in North Korea or China, doesn't mean we should follow suit....

No, they did not. They said there was not a directly measured correlation between numbers of police and crime. Do you think there is no relationship? Should we simply eliminate police departments, then? Because that is basically where you're going. If the number of police has nothing to do with crime then let's close down the departments and save ourselves a lot of money.

In areas where crime has been significantly reduced, yes we should reduce policing numbers, not increase them at over twice the rate of population growth, when overall crime is declining.

[Icebound]

L

Fraud is largely not investigated in Canada because the police do not have the resources, and because the courts don't really take it seriously. When I worked for Canada Revenue Agency I was monitoring a large increase in identify fraud related tax fraud. People get your information then file your tax claim before you do. We send a refund cheque, and they walk away with it. The usual amount was between $2500-$3900 because these claims are routine and breeze through the system.I once traced three cheques from three false claims to a Rogers store in Mississauga. I could even view the store on google street view. But no one went to that store to make inquiries. The RCMP didn't have the resources to look into such things, and we didn't have either the resources or the legal power. CRA sends out a growing number of these false refund cheques every year, and only a miniscule number ever get investigated, mainly those that look like part of a large, organized effort.

Having seen it first hand.... would you agree that it is getting time when we should be PROVIDING the necessary resources?

[cybercoma]

Direct correlation? Nobody has said that there is a "direct" correlation. That would suggest that adding X police would cause a decline in crime of X. But the number of police certainly has an impact on both crime and the resolution of investigations.

Police and crime is a pretty clear cut example of a bidirectional relationship. The number of police affects the amount of crime and the amount of crime also affects the number of police. It's not easy to unpack the relationship.

[Derek 2.0]

Police and crime is a pretty clear cut example of a bidirectional relationship. The number of police affects the amount of crime and the amount of crime also affects the number of police. It's not easy to unpack the relationship.

I'll cite the rest of the report that you're paraphrasing, well including the actual conclusion:

...after controlling for crime rates and other explicit socioeconomic confounding factors, substantial differences in staffing remain that are the result of local circumstances and conditions that are not easily identified. Some of these differences undoubtedly reflect inefficient use of police resources while others may reflect other more difficult to quantify local socioeconomic differences that raise unique challenges to policing. There is substantial scope for police forces across Canada’s CMAs to discover what best practices are when it comes to more efficient operation of policing given the range and examples of staffing.