Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
Obviously deaths in Scotland are lower the England, far lower population.
When you do it per population Scotland is worse compared to England.
Wales and Ireland fair even worse compared to England.
2023 Fatalities and Rates (per million population)
Country
Fatalities (2023)
Population (mid-2023)
Rate per million
England
~1,370
57,690,300
~23.7
Scotland
155
5,490,100
~28.2
Wales
101
3,164,400
~31.9
Northern Ireland
71
1,920,400
~37.0
No, there has not been a noticeable reduction in alcohol-related road accidents in Scotland attributable to the introduction of the 50mg/100ml drink-drive limit in December 2014.
Multiple independent studies, using natural experiment designs comparing Scotland to England and Wales (where the limit remained 80mg/100ml), found no significant impact on overall road traffic accidents (RTAs), including fatal, serious, or slight injuries.
A 2019 study published in The Lancet evaluated the effects of the lower limit and concluded it "did not have the intended effect of reducing RTAs."
A 2021 study in the Journal of Health Economics similarly found "no effect" on any type of road accident, including those involving alcohol.
NIHR-funded research in 2019 noted the change was "not linked to reduced road traffic accidents," possibly due to insufficient enforcement or publicity.
While drink-driving offences initially dropped by about 12.5% in the first nine months after the change (per police figures), this did not translate into fewer accidents. Long-term trends show a general decline in road casualties across the UK (including drink-related ones), but analyses attribute no additional reduction in Scotland to the lower limit specifically.
Some slight decreases in monthly accident rates were observed (e.g., from ~740 to ~704 per month in one analysis), but these were not statistically significant or causally linked to the policy. Experts suggest the lack of impact may stem from limited enforcement, as the policy relied more on deterrence than increased breath testing.
In summary, the evidence consistently shows the lower limit alone did not produce a noticeable reduction in alcohol-related accidents.
When you do it per population Scotland is worse compared to England.
Wales and Ireland fair even worse compared to England.
2023 Fatalities and Rates (per million population)
Country
Fatalities (2023)
Population (mid-2023)
Rate per million
England
~1,370
57,690,300
~23.7
Scotland
155
5,490,100
~28.2
Wales
101
3,164,400
~31.9
Northern Ireland
71
1,920,400
~37.0
No, there has not been a noticeable reduction in alcohol-related road accidents in Scotland attributable to the introduction of the 50mg/100ml drink-drive limit in December 2014.
Multiple independent studies, using natural experiment designs comparing Scotland to England and Wales (where the limit remained 80mg/100ml), found no significant impact on overall road traffic accidents (RTAs), including fatal, serious, or slight injuries.
A 2019 study published in The Lancet evaluated the effects of the lower limit and concluded it "did not have the intended effect of reducing RTAs."
A 2021 study in the Journal of Health Economics similarly found "no effect" on any type of road accident, including those involving alcohol.
NIHR-funded research in 2019 noted the change was "not linked to reduced road traffic accidents," possibly due to insufficient enforcement or publicity.
While drink-driving offences initially dropped by about 12.5% in the first nine months after the change (per police figures), this did not translate into fewer accidents. Long-term trends show a general decline in road casualties across the UK (including drink-related ones), but analyses attribute no additional reduction in Scotland to the lower limit specifically.
Some slight decreases in monthly accident rates were observed (e.g., from ~740 to ~704 per month in one analysis), but these were not statistically significant or causally linked to the policy. Experts suggest the lack of impact may stem from limited enforcement, as the policy relied more on deterrence than increased breath testing.
In summary, the evidence consistently shows the lower limit alone did not produce a noticeable reduction in alcohol-related accidents.
Xipe Totec
Something nasty in the woodshed
Statistics from X, of course, obviously more authoritative than the actual police. 
The numbers are per million of population.
Now go away.
The numbers are per million of population.
Now go away.
First Aspect
Guru
Jesus wtf is going on in Northern Ireland?
Stevo 666
Veteran
And who cares?
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
your figures are totals for each countryStatistics from X, of course, obviously more authoritative than the actual police.
The numbers are per million of population.
Now go away.
Scotland has 10% population of England yet worse per million road deaths
First Aspect
Guru
You have a reading age of about 5.
Last edited:
C R
Guru
You're being over generous.
Psamathe
Guru
One thing Starmer has got badly wrong and probably already missed his opportunity to get right is to pass on Musk's software producing sexualised and paedophilic pictures of women, girls and children. With his Government's push on safety for women and girls to fail to act and pass it on to an independent regulator ... basically he's doing nothing beyond his prime directive (prime directive being not to upset Trump or Musk).
briantrumpet
Shaman
He's waiting for McSweeney's polling to come in on the subject, while he also checks with Glasman...
First Aspect
Guru
This sort of minutia isn't the issue.
As with all incumbents, Labour are suffering because the economy reflects the world having gone to shoot. It's not their fault but it's the price of power.
However, what he has consistently got wrong is how to deal with people who don't agree with him first time. He articulates a well reasoned argument, backbenchers rebel, he changes the policy. The back benchers and whoever else disagreed in the first place are already alienated and changing tack alienates everyone else.
This also means, in the face of a bad economic situation, he has nothing to point to to claim he is helping (benefits bill, basically).
On a lot of other fronts they are doing as well or as better as many people hoped. Internationally he is walking a tightrope that is being pulled on by three powerful moderately hostile people, two of whom have mental health problems (Trump, Putin and Xi), and those taking potshots at his not "standing up" to them simply don't understand how weak the UK is. There have also been some sensible things happening domestically, but as slowly as these things take.
The main issue really is not even immigration, it's the economy and two further rounds of tax rises without any reform of the benefits system to bring costs down to what used to be co siderwd generous. For as long as takes are rising and benefits are also rising, Labour are doomed.
As with all incumbents, Labour are suffering because the economy reflects the world having gone to shoot. It's not their fault but it's the price of power.
However, what he has consistently got wrong is how to deal with people who don't agree with him first time. He articulates a well reasoned argument, backbenchers rebel, he changes the policy. The back benchers and whoever else disagreed in the first place are already alienated and changing tack alienates everyone else.
This also means, in the face of a bad economic situation, he has nothing to point to to claim he is helping (benefits bill, basically).
On a lot of other fronts they are doing as well or as better as many people hoped. Internationally he is walking a tightrope that is being pulled on by three powerful moderately hostile people, two of whom have mental health problems (Trump, Putin and Xi), and those taking potshots at his not "standing up" to them simply don't understand how weak the UK is. There have also been some sensible things happening domestically, but as slowly as these things take.
The main issue really is not even immigration, it's the economy and two further rounds of tax rises without any reform of the benefits system to bring costs down to what used to be co siderwd generous. For as long as takes are rising and benefits are also rising, Labour are doomed.
briantrumpet
Shaman
Agree with pretty much all of this, but it's still symptomatic, indicative of dysfunction somewhere in the machine.
Rusty Nails
Country Member
There is no machine. It is all about the people and the way they do things.
Dorset Boy
Active Member
All these U-turns, the list of which is now very long, are largely the result of failing to do any proper due dilligence on their policies.
Perhaps if they did the DD properly before trying to introduce the policy they wouldn't look so stupid.
Dream up a policy by all means, that is their job, but do the proper background research to understand its impact and whether or not it is likely to work. That seems totally missing.
Perhaps if they did the DD properly before trying to introduce the policy they wouldn't look so stupid.
Dream up a policy by all means, that is their job, but do the proper background research to understand its impact and whether or not it is likely to work. That seems totally missing.
