You think Lammy watches or even understands The Wire?
Comment on David Lammy promises 25% cut in number of children jailed while they await trial
Zombie@feddit.uk 1 week ago
Yay! Arbitrary number targets! That’s the best kind of targets.
There’s never been a highly acclaimed TV show explaining in detail why arbitrary targets within the justice system are detrimental, so there’s no way the public could know or understand this. Let alone a politician of high office.
mannycalavera@feddit.uk 1 week ago
teslekova@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
It’s not that it’s arbitrary, although it is. It’s more an admission that we could do far more, but choose not to spend the resources necessary, or the political capital to tackle the police and community culture (both interact to produce this situation even when the cops have the power).
He probably chose it for motivational reasons. It’s a nice round number and it sells well in print or on TV, and you can shorthand it easily for stakeholders who will largely be either hostile to the basic idea or suspicious of your motives.
Zombie@feddit.uk 1 week ago
He’s a politician, he chose it for political reasons.
When the police chase targets, numbers get fudged. KPIs, crime statistics, performance targets, stakeholder demands, call it what you want, they will aim for that number regardless of the consequences. It’s bad governance and results in things breaking.
youtu.be/xH_6_8NOfwI
teslekova@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Well, ok, what works better than targets? Gotta measure how you’re going somehow.
Zombie@feddit.uk 1 week ago
Determining what your goal is in terms of outcome, not numbers or percentages.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart's_law
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell's_law
These things have been known about in sociology and political science for quite some time.