As the Scottish polls start to catch up with Corbynmania, I think SCON are now set to come 3rd behind SLAB in the National vote. With the UK polls closing this will present tactical voters with quite a number of dilemmas.
Is there any reason to suppose that Scottish Labour is doing dramatically better than it was one or two weeks ago, other than one opinion poll?
Besides anything else, Panelbase have also, apparently, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.
The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.
We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:
1. Independence 2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely 3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour
More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get rid of Scotland as quickly as possible. I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and
LOL, Little Englander beats the drum. You halfwit you are hanging on like grim death because you are milking us. You sad F***s will soon be left on your jack jones with only yourselves to turn on.
Go fuck yourself you pathetic little shit.
Go polish your jackboots saddo
No, you go and polish yours. Your attitude has always been apparent and it stinks. Nasty, cruel, malignant, pathetic, disgusting, fascistic, petty blood-and-soil nationalist. Sick, depraved fuck. Go fuck yourself.
Get out of the wrong side of bed saddo and then mummy would not let you have coco pops, poor diddums
You two go get a room. No-one is being persuaded here.
The police responded very quickly indeed. So was there intelligence available or were the services on "critical" or black? It costs a great deal of money for the police and special services to be kept at this fast response level. There is no way that this level of response would be available normally on a week end.
That's the norm nowadays - in London there are permanently deployed armed police circling around in cars 24/7.
In the UK in general, the armed police are out and about - if you know what you are looking for, you can tell the armed response vehicles from regular police cars. The boot is a secure gun locker.
They don't sit in a police station waiting for a call.
If that one and its trend is right, Corbyn could end up most votes on Thursday, as the Tories have little time to Change the narrative of doing badly.
Pull yourself together! Most people have already decided how to vote. Even those figures when Baxtered show the Tory majority increasing, without accounting for gains in Scotland.
I didn't say I believed it, I said 'if' it was right. I do believe the ones at the lower end of the scare, but at the moment am predicting something like CON 42-45 Lab 34-38
As the Scottish polls start to catch up with Corbynmania, I think SCON are now set to come 3rd behind SLAB in the National vote. With the UK polls closing this will present tactical voters with quite a number of dilemmas.
Is there any reason to suppose that Scottish Labour is doing dramatically better than it was one or two weeks ago, other than one opinion poll?
Besides anything else, Panelbase have also, apparently, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.
The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.
We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:
1. Independence 2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely 3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour
More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get rid of Scotland as quickly as possible. I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and
LOL, Little Englander beats the drum. You halfwit you are hanging on like grim death because you are milking us. You sad F***s will soon be left on your jack jones with only yourselves to turn on.
Go fuck yourself you pathetic little shit.
Go polish your jackboots saddo
No, you go and polish yours. Your attitude has always been apparent and it stinks. Nasty, cruel, malignant, pathetic, disgusting, fascistic, petty blood-and-soil nationalist. Sick, depraved fuck. Go fuck yourself.
Get out of the wrong side of bed saddo and then mummy would not let you have coco pops, poor diddums
You two go get a room. No-one is being persuaded here.
If you read the story, it seems to be feuding criminal gangs rather than terrorists.
are you daft ?
the paramilitaries run the crims and always have done, where do you think the money comes from to run a military campaign ?
Yes there is clear overlap but in this case the story is clear that it is crime that is the important factor, not the IRA from a decade ago and not even so-called dissident republicans now. Reading between the lines, the police initially thought it was semtex which has a clear IRA link but have now found it is TNT.
This is a political speech, not a statement about the events last night.
Yep, statement on last night and now pitching a vision of what she wants to do. See the custodial sentences bit.
It was a speech by the Prime Minister, a job she still holds, even though not an MP. Seemed reasonable to me, although I have concerns about this talk of regulating the Internet and taking on Facebook and so on.
Disrupting communication networks is vital for counter-terrorism. We have to bring our laws and actions into line with the reality of how the internet is being abused.
All you will effectively do is end up with loads more Wannacry type attacks (which remember originated at the US NSA). By seemingly dealing with one problem (which you won't actually deal with at all) you will create whole string of new ones with the potential for far more harm than 3 men in a white van.
And the police responded superbly, with 8 minutes.
The police responded very quickly indeed. So was there intelligence available or were the services on "critical" or black? It costs a great deal of money for the police and special services to be kept at this fast response level. There is no way that this level of response would be available normally on a week end. Which leaves the questions that will be asked, were the services aware of the general possibility or did they allow the attack to take place. I, personally prefer the first option, but that then begs the question, if the general possibility was there, why wasn't the level retained or renewed to critical?
The armed police response really is just that quick in London.
Not maintained at that level without authorisation. Only one person in the UK has that, and she lives in 10 Downing Street.
The Met has armed police cruising round London all the time so 8 minutes is unremarkable. The emergency services -- police, fire, ambulance and hospitals -- also regularly practise dealing with major incidents in London. Whether the SAS response is normally that quick -- actually I'm not even sure how quick it was. Remember also that the terrorism threat level was already at "severe".
Your second part makes a lot of assumptions with rather less evidence; you may be right that there is a bias towards the right amongst the unengaged (although in the past at least many wwc would fall into that box and have leaned left), but there is no way of knowing whether it is big or small.
A polling and betting post.. to distract me from the horrors.
My theory is these people are of the more insular and cynical kind, like to keep themselves to themselves, lean conservative, and are surely likely to be especially unimpressed by the views of Jezz, to respond to a poll. Basically we are just guessing.
In terms of the models, there are credible reasons for thinking Survation has Labour too high (too many young people) but also why ComRes and ICM have them too low (the young will beat 2015 turnout). So a midpoint between the two is the best guess.
The bottom line is that this election depends like never before on the turnout of the young. Lots of scope for anecdotal PB'er reports on Thursday of polling stations that feel like the school dinner queue....(to us oldies, anyway)
That isn't quite my point though.. I am saying that the CHANGES in opinion amongst unpolled groups are uncertain and perhaps not well correlated. To get evidence that the changes are different you would have to do doorstep stuff and ask whether people would ever be pollable by phone or online at the same time I suppose and then do the analysis. I bet nobody has done that.
You don't sound like a Tory, kle? Why add to their majority?
1) I won't be since i live in a safe seat anyway 2) If we exclude political compass which seems to think I am closest to Plaid Cymru, I usually seem to come somewhere between Tory and LD 3) While the LD manifesto was more realistic than the Labour one and included costings, their campaign has been terrible, and I do not know they deserve my vote, and in any case they might be dead in a week, and some of their supporters antipathy for the coalition years puts me off, as a coalition supporter. I know the candidate, a good and hardworking man, so I really considered it and I have never voted Tory before. But 4) While the social care policy no doubt needs tweaking, I appreciated that the Tory manifesto was attempting something for now, not vague words about a national care service and not much else (and not even sure how it would be funded in the labour one, nor even done in their first term), and that with it and the triple lock drop and WFA, the Tories were brave enough to tell some of their core supporters that they cannot have their freebies, that social care is a problem that needs a solution now, even if it costs them. Their campaign has also been terrible, and May is not great, but they were willing to be honest about some challenges, not just pretend its simple and easy. 5) Corbyn is surging. I do not think he will win, I do not think Labour will win most seats or get most votes, I think the Tories will have a majority of 30-50, but the surge is real, and in a polarised election, when the LDs are not making any impact at all and I cannot help them anyway, I feel I need to acknowledge that the prospect of Corbyn winning, or even just doing well enough to continue on as Labour leader, which now seems likely, does concern me, in a way I was never concerned with Ed M or Gordon Brown winning. To be blunt, for the first time I feel compelled into the sort of negative 'least worst' choice that many have faced before. Rather than the easy way out - vote LD, and share no blame for what the next Tory government does.
I'll vote Tory on June 8th, but that doesn't make me a Tory, anymore than voting LD 3 times made me a LD. What I'd prefer is a socially liberal, economically conservative, strongly UK Union party. (Which also supports some form of PR for preference)
OK. As you say both campaigns have been poor, so it's a tough choice. Personally I feel the Tory reaction and U-turn on the pensioner stuff will simply make tackling the unfairness issue more difficult and less likely.
Tactical voting in a safe seat is at least a novel approach, for sure
As the Scottish polls start to catch up with Corbynmania, I think SCON are now set to come 3rd behind SLAB in the National vote. With the UK polls closing this will present tactical voters with quite a number of dilemmas.
https://www.sundaypo ntly, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.
The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.
We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:
1. Independence 2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely 3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour
More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get rid of Scotland as quickly as possible. I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and
LOL, Little Englander beats the drum. You halfwit you are hanging on like grim death because you are milking us. You sad F***s will soon be left on your jack jones with only yourselves to turn on.
Go fuck yourself you pathetic little shit.
Go polish your jackboots saddo
No, you go and polish yours. Your attitude has always been apparent and it stinks. Nasty, cruel, malignant, pathetic, disgusting, fascistic, petty blood-and-soil nationalist. Sick, depraved fuck. Go fuck yourself.
Get out of the wrong side of bed saddo and then mummy would not let you have coco pops, poor diddums
You two go get a room. No-one is being persuaded here.
butt out and mind your own business
Bit difficult to ignore you two shouting across the playground.. .
And the police responded superbly, with 8 minutes.
The police responded very quickly indeed. So was there intelligence available or were the services on "critical" or black? It costs a great deal of money for the police and special services to be kept at this fast response level. There is no way that this level of response would be available normally on a week end. Which leaves the questions that will be asked, were the services aware of the general possibility or did they allow the attack to take place. I, personally prefer the first option, but that then begs the question, if the general possibility was there, why wasn't the level retained or renewed to critical?
The armed police response really is just that quick in London.
Not maintained at that level without authorisation. Only one person in the UK has that, and she lives in 10 Downing Street.
If you read the story, it seems to be feuding criminal gangs rather than terrorists.
are you daft ?
the paramilitaries run the crims and always have done, where do you think the money comes from to run a military campaign ?
Yes there is clear overlap but in this case the story is clear that it is crime that is the important factor, not the IRA from a decade ago and not even so-called dissident republicans now. Reading between the lines, the police initially thought it was semtex which has a clear IRA link but have now found it is TNT.
just plain nuts
it's the Gardai who made the link to PIRA and SF,
do you know better than they do ?
Read the story -- it is the Gardai who are now focusing on crime.
I agree with Mrs May that things have got to change.
I'd add:
1) Tackle the Saudi issue. Their finance and malign influence on British schools and mosques is unacceptable. UK arms suppliers will complain but our security is more important.
2) Increase resources for policing and anti-terrorism (and for God's sake don't mention the magic money tree). The issue doesn't seem to be in identifying suspects but in monitoring and managing them. More mass surveillance isn't the answer. More manpower is.
3) More explicitly support the Palestinian cause e.g. by recognising Palestine and risk upsetting Israel. This would have widespread support in the UK but it also helps neutralise the grievances exploited by the radicalisers of weak young men.
The age of tolerance and hand-wringing has to come to an end. It doesn't make us any safer.
Virtue signalling, vigils and candles do not defeat hate
We cannot appease our way to peace
Why not? Vigils and candles bring us together and make us feel better. Crackdowns are only effective if they work. China has a big terrorism problem in its West, which it responds to counterproductively by cracking down hard.
You don't sound like a Tory, kle? Why add to their majority?
1) I won't be since i live in a safe seat anyway 2) If we exclude political compass which seems to think I am closest to Plaid Cymru, I usually seem to come somewhere between Tory and LD 3) While the LD manifesto was more realistic than the Labour one and included costings, their campaign has been terrible, and I do not know they deserve my vote, and in any case they might be dead in a week, and some of their supporters antipathy for the coalition years puts me off, as a coalition supporter. I know the candidate, a good and hardworking man, so I really considered it and I have never voted Tory before. But Their campaign has also been terrible, and May is not great, but they were willing to be honest about some challenges, not just pretend its simple and easy. 5) Corbyn is surging. I do not think he will win, I do not think Labour will win most seats or get most votes, I think the Tories will have a majority of 30-50, but the surge is real, and in a polarised election, when the LDs are not making any impact at all and I cannot help them anyway, I feel I need to acknowledge that the prospect of Corbyn winning, or even just doing well enough to continue on as Labour leader, which now seems likely, does concern me, in a way I was never concerned with Ed M or Gordon Brown winning. To be blunt, for the first time I feel compelled into the sort of negative 'least worst' choice that many have faced before. Rather than the easy way out - vote LD, and share no blame for what the next Tory government does.
I'll vote Tory on June 8th, but that doesn't make me a Tory, anymore than voting LD 3 times made me a LD. What I'd prefer is a socially liberal, economically conservative, strongly UK Union party. (Which also supports some form of PR for preference)
OK. As you say both campaigns have been poor, so it's a tough choice. Personally I feel the Tory reaction and U-turn on the pensioner stuff will simply make tackling the unfairness issue more difficult and less likely.
Tactical voting in a safe seat is at least a novel approach, for sure
I aim to be different.
On the reaction and u-turn issue, perhaps. I would not blanket support whatever eventually gets proposed, but I appreciated the intent at least. The manifesto was to my mind more realistic and achievable, even if there's plenty in there I do not like.
I still haven't read the Green manifesto, I must get around to it
If you read the story, it seems to be feuding criminal gangs rather than terrorists.
are you daft ?
the paramilitaries run the crims and always have done, where do you think the money comes from to run a military campaign ?
Yes there is clear overlap but in this case the story is clear that it is crime that is the important factor, not the IRA from a decade ago and not even so-called dissident republicans now. Reading between the lines, the police initially thought it was semtex which has a clear IRA link but have now found it is TNT.
just plain nuts
it's the Gardai who made the link to PIRA and SF,
do you know better than they do ?
Read the story -- it is the Gardai who are now focusing on crime.
I have read the story which is why I posted it
the Gardai are saying is criminal gangs linked to PIRA and SF, they wouldnt have added that if it was just pure crims
The police responded very quickly indeed. So was there intelligence available or were the services on "critical" or black? It costs a great deal of money for the police and special services to be kept at this fast response level. There is no way that this level of response would be available normally on a week end.
That's the norm nowadays - in London there are permanently deployed armed police circling around in cars 24/7.
In central London they can have a police car pretty much anywhere in five minutes, as was seen last night. The armed units always used to drive around in red marked cars, don't know if they still do. On key routes the control room can also switch traffic lights to clear a path for emergency vehicles.
PMTM has officially suspended her national campaign, but the reality is she's announcing a new counter-terrorism manifesto in all but name in this speech. Hinting at significant internet controls etc. Light on detail of course, but interesting decision to go beyond speaking about this specific attack.
Yes, I think she's pushing the boundary of what we can say today that isn't election-related. It's genuinely difficult, though because people will be looking to politicians to say how they'll try to reduce this threat, and if she just said it's all very bad and we're doing our best,she'd not really be doing her job.
I think that it would make sense for somone low-key like Marr to interview the party leaders on the specific question of "What would you do to address this?" without going into what's wrong with other parties etc. Peoplre would appreciate some guidance, it's obviously relevant to the election, but few want a snarly slanging match right now.
The age of tolerance and hand-wringing has to come to an end. It doesn't make us any safer.
Virtue signalling, vigils and candles do not defeat hate
We cannot appease our way to peace
The Manchester bomber was reported 5 times by his local community to the security services.
What are you proposing?
I understood there was no record of any reports to the security services .
I understood the bomber was actually on the security services watch list as a result of reports from the local community.
As I understand it, he came under review by the security services some years ago, but there was no evidence of serious concern at the time. He remained on a long (25-30,000 ?) list of people with known extremist views but wasn't on the list of 3-5,000 with known terrorist connections/inclinations. And the reports made more recently about him weren't direct to the security services, or on the 789321 hotline, but made locally (local police?) and without sufficient evidence to have been escalated.
The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least
His final analysis is since there is a wide range then focus on the average of the polls and not any individual one but be prepared for a wide range of outcomes! I do note that the average of the polls from yesterday added 4.6% to the lead of the Tories from the raw figures.
Nate Silver's analysis - If you're a cautious gambler, no bet.
As the Scottish polls start to catch up with Corbynmania, I think SCON are now set to come 3rd behind SLAB in the National vote. With the UK polls closing this will present tactical voters with quite a number of dilemmas.
Is there any reason to suppose that Scottish Labour is doing dramatically better than it was one or two weeks ago, other than one opinion poll?
Besides anything else, Panelbase have also, apparently, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.
The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.
We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:
1. Independence 2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely 3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour
More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get rid of Scotland as quickly as possible. I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and its replacement with something that's actually fair (which would inevitably take a great chunk of money off the Scots and give it to the Welsh.) If I'm right in my suspicion, which is that most Scots don't give a fuck about the UK and that the No campaign only won in 2014 because of bribery, then that should do the trick.
There's a problem with that, and there's a big clue in the name. We are the Conservative and Unionist Party.
The age of tolerance and hand-wringing has to come to an end. It doesn't make us any safer.
Virtue signalling, vigils and candles do not defeat hate
We cannot appease our way to peace
The Manchester bomber was reported 5 times by his local community to the security services.
What are you proposing?
The Police have denied any contact was made
Yes. I saw that . Is there a link anywhere?
I recall it being reported in several media reports but do not have a link
Those reports are the worst. It is so often a single source who says something eg remember cage spokesman making all sorts of claims about Lee rugby killers. And the security services can't reply.
TSE is right to highlight the parallel with the Guildford pub bombings. If it was right to carry on as normal then then it must be now. Or were we made of sterner stuff in the 70s?
I don't think it's necessarily that. I agree it's a problem but it must also be hard for politicians to be knocking lumps out of one another in the immediate wake of an attack. Any argument on national security run the risk of looking like exploitation.
I don't think that Corbyn should have gone around today attacking May on security, though that won't stop the Tories attacking Corbyn just under the radar. But Corbyn and the team should be heard explaining why they think a Labour government would be better than the alternative on a whole range of policies.
I for one would be really interested to hear how disbanding MI5 and disarming the police is going to help
PMTM has officially suspended her national campaign, but the reality is she's announcing a new counter-terrorism manifesto in all but name in this speech. Hinting at significant internet controls etc. Light on detail of course, but interesting decision to go beyond speaking about this specific attack.
Yes, I think she's pushing the boundary of what we can say today that isn't election-related. It's genuinely difficult, though because people will be looking to politicians to say how they'll try to reduce this threat, and if she just said it's all very bad and we're doing our best,she'd not really be doing her job.
I think that it would make sense for somone low-key like Marr to interview the party leaders on the specific question of "What would you do to address this?" without going into what's wrong with other parties etc. Peoplre would appreciate some guidance, it's obviously relevant to the election, but few want a snarly slanging match right now.
The election campaign has been suspended - but we cannot suspend politics completely.
If it is right for Corbyn to make a political point about police numbers (as he did in his remarks to the BBC), it is absolutely right for the UK PM to make a robust statement.
Enough is Enough is what will resonate for the rest of today. And that is a sentiment that many will share.
I agree with Mrs May that things have got to change.
I'd add:
1) Tackle the Saudi issue. Their finance and malign influence on British schools and mosques is unacceptable. UK arms suppliers will complain but our security is more important.
2) Increase resources for policing and anti-terrorism (and for God's sake don't mention the magic money tree). The issue doesn't seem to be in identifying suspects but in monitoring and managing them. More mass surveillance isn't the answer. More manpower is.
3) More explicitly support the Palestinian cause e.g. by recognising Palestine and risk upsetting Israel. This would have widespread support in the UK but it also helps neutralise the grievances exploited by the radicalisers of weak young men.
If I were Corbyn, I would go with these.
1 is the right thing to do, but the Tories never will. As much of a blind spot for them as some of the Corbyn baggage. 2 is inevitable now anyway, surely? 3 is also right, but impossible to do now without it looking as if we have been bombed into it.
We got away with 3 in Northern Ireland by maintaining an overly hard-line against any concliliation in public whilst working away furiously in private to try and resolve or neutralise the discrimination and grievances, and talking to the terrorists whilst insisting that we weren't. But the Middle East isn't our conflict to manage, and besides Mr Trump wants to sort it out himself.
I very much agree with thread header as well as recognising that - this morning - our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the bereaved as well as the injured.
Having said that I do wonder about how counter-productive our 'collective' response is to these events. At least one radio station changed its programming this morning and there is obviously a lot of publicity for this one event; does this not embolden terrorists?
If we repeatedly demonstrate that we can be thrown out of our normal routine each time these horrific events happen then I suspect that will be an additional reason for them to happen (not to mention the potential for copy-cat activities). I note, for example, that on the night after the Manchester bombing five people were killed in a car crash on the M6. Both events were tragic, both needed investigating, but only one received ongoing publicity and a tribute concert. I wonder whether we would be better celebrating our wonderful democratic way life rather than tragic death. I apologise if this offends anyone, but I think we are in danger of giving the terrorists the 'oxygen of publicity' that they seek for their cowardly ideology.
His final analysis is since there is a wide range then focus on the average of the polls and not any individual one but be prepared for a wide range of outcomes! I do note that the average of the polls from yesterday added 4.6% to the lead of the Tories from the raw figures.
Nate Silver's analysis - If you're a cautious gambler, no bet.
I think he has a point that if you are looking for betting value, there's more of it in better Labour numbers than better Conservative numbers, because of the instinct that polls with the highest Conservative margins are the correct ones. When we really don't know.
As the Scottish polls start to catch up with Corbynmania, I think SCON are now set to come 3rd behind SLAB in the National vote. With the UK polls closing this will present tactical voters with quite a number of dilemmas.
Is there any reason to suppose that Scottish Labour is doing dramatically better than it was one or two weeks ago, other than one opinion poll?
Besides anything else, Panelbase have also, apparently, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.
The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.
We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:
1. Independence 2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely 3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour
More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get rid of Scotland as quickly as possible. I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and its replacement with something that's actually fair (which would inevitably take a great chunk of money off the Scots and give it to the Welsh.) If I'm right in my suspicion, which is that most Scots don't give a fuck about the UK and that the No campaign only won in 2014 because of bribery, then that should do the trick.
There's a problem with that, and there's a big clue in the name. We are the Conservative and Unionist Party.
What name ?
I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.
And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.
May needs to call in the likes of quillim foundation, Henry jackson society, Rory the Tory etc and do a Tony Blair to frank field "think the unthinkable" type analysis.
The above is obviously predicated on the country not going bonkers on Thursday.
As the Scottish polls start to catch up with Corbynmania, I think SCON are now set to come 3rd behind SLAB in the National vote. With the UK polls closing this will present tactical voters with quite a number of dilemmas.
/
Is there any reason to suppose that Scottish Labour is doing dramatically better than it was one or two weeks ago, other than one opinion poll?
Besides anything else, Panelbase have also, apparently, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.
The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.
We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:
1. Independence 2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely 3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour
More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get rid of Scotland as quickly as possible. I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and its replacement with something that's actually fair (which would inevitably take a great chunk of money off the Scots and give it to the Welsh.) If I'm right in my suspicion, which is that most Scots don't give a fuck about the UK and that the No campaign only won in 2014 because of bribery, then that should do the trick.
There's a problem with that, and there's a big clue in the name. We are the Conservative and Unionist Party.
What name ?
I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.
And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.
It's the official full name of the party, even today. But you are right that this came about when they merged with the Liberal Unionists, who had split from the Liberals over Irish Home Rule. I believe I am right that Heseltine was one of the last people to stand as a Liberal Unionist.
The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least
Even if he got promoted onto the shortlist of 3-5,000 the security services only have the resources to watch a couple of hundred or so around the clock. It was suggested at the time of Lee Rigby they would need to be increased in size by atleast 20 fold to have a chance of watching all the people even just on the short list of known risks.
Slightly off topic, but it appears there's now considerable pressure being put on Qatar by their Gulf neighbours, over their foreign policy and funding of extremists.
This is something the Saudis have severely clamped down on in recent times, as ISIL have risen in Iran and Syria. Moderate muslims in Oman, UAE and Jordan are very worried about terrorism turning up closer to their home as well as abroad.
This was a key part of Trump's visit to the region last week, and his words on the need to root out extremists and the funding were approved by the leaders of the GCC countries other than Qatar.
His final analysis is since there is a wide range then focus on the average of the polls and not any individual one but be prepared for a wide range of outcomes! I do note that the average of the polls from yesterday added 4.6% to the lead of the Tories from the raw figures.
Nate Silver's analysis - If you're a cautious gambler, no bet.
I notice the labour spinners on here have been attacking tory government over police numbers in response to terrorist attack.
Let's just remember for a second. What did jez do when asked if he would support an ISIS fund raiser release from prison for Christmas, go absolutely no bloody way. Of course not, he supported them. FFS...Robbing old ladies to fund ISIS and jezza goes into bat for them.
Then Of course we have mcIRA who supported getting rid of the spooks. 10k more plods in panda cars but no F##king intelligence agencies, that will do the trick.
These people disgust me.
/the choice is between an at best average tory government - or the poisonous, vileness of Labour.
Is there any reason to suppose that Scottish Labour is doing dramatically better than it was one or two weeks ago, other than one opinion poll?
Besides anything else, Panelbase have also, apparently, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.
The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.
We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:
1. Independence 2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely 3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour
More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get rid of Scotland as quickly as possible. I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and its replacement with something that's actually fair (which would inevitably take a great chunk of money off the Scots and give it to the Welsh.) If I'm right in my suspicion, which is that most Scots don't give a fuck about the UK and that the No campaign only won in 2014 because of bribery, then that should do the trick.
There's a problem with that, and there's a big clue in the name. We are the Conservative and Unionist Party.
What name ?
I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.
And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.
It's the official full name of the party, even today. But you are right that this came about when they merged with the Liberal Unionists, who had split from the Liberals over Irish Home Rule. I believe I am right that Heseltine was one of the last people to stand as a Liberal Unionist.
Wasn't Heseltine a National Liberal ?
As was John Nott and David Renton (John Major's predecessor in Huntingdon).
As the Scottish polls start to catch up with Corbynmania, I think SCON are now set to come 3rd behind SLAB in the National vote. With the UK polls closing this will present tactical voters with quite a number of dilemmas.
Is there any reason to suppose that Scottish Labour is doing dramatically better than it was one or two weeks ago, other than one opinion poll?
Besides anything else, Panelbase have also, apparently, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.
The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.
We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:
1. Independence 2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely 3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour
More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get rid of Scotland as quickly as possible. I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and its replacement with something that's actually fair (which would inevitably take a great chunk of money off the Scots and give it to the Welsh.) If I'm right in my suspicion, which is that most Scots don't give a fuck about the UK and that the No campaign only won in 2014 because of bribery, then that should do the trick.
There's a problem with that, and there's a big clue in the name. We are the Conservative and Unionist Party.
What name ?
I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.
And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.
Probably because on leaflets it's turned into the Theresa May Party, but the full party name is front and centre on the front cover of the manifesto.
Is there any reason to suppose that Scottish Labour is doing dramatically better than it was one or two weeks ago, other than one opinion poll?
Besides anything else, Panelbase have also, apparently, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.
The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.
We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:
1. Independence 2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely 3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour
More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get rid of Scotland as quickly as possible. I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and its replacement with something that's actually fair (which would inevitably take a great chunk of money off the Scots and give it to the Welsh.) If I'm right in my suspicion, which is that most Scots don't give a fuck about the UK and that the No campaign only won in 2014 because of bribery, then that should do the trick.
There's a problem with that, and there's a big clue in the name. We are the Conservative and Unionist Party.
What name ?
I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.
And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.
It's the official full name of the party, even today. But you are right that this came about when they merged with the Liberal Unionists, who had split from the Liberals over Irish Home Rule. I believe I am right that Heseltine was one of the last people to stand as a Liberal Unionist.
Wasn't Heseltine a National Liberal ?
As was John Nott and David Renton (John Major's predecessor in Huntingdon).
Yes I think you are right. I did wonder whether I was misremembering that bit, sorry.
I notice the labour spinners on here have been attacking tory government over police numbers in response to terrorist attack.
Let's just remember for a second. What did jez do when asked if he would support an ISIS fund raiser release from prison for Christmas, go absolutely no bloody way. Of course not, he supported them. FFS...Robbing old ladies to fund ISIS and jezza goes into bat for them.
Then Of course we have mcIRA who supported getting rid of the spooks. 10k more plods in panda cars but no F##king intelligence agencies, that will do the trick.
These people disgust me.
/the choice is between an at best average tory government - or the poisonous, vileness of Labour.
No choice really is it?
To me it isn't but it is very worrying how many cultists there appears to be...But then apparently I am "right wing loon", one who happens to have never said a good word about may or farage and only yesterday said would be so much better if we had the talented former lib dem MPs in government and have previous said a southern observer labour party I would have no problem with.
Then Of course we have mcIRA who supported getting rid of the spooks. 10k more plods in panda cars but no F##king intelligence agencies, that will do the trick.
unarmed plods in panda cars.. he wants to disarm the police force. That would have been good last night, running up to the terrorists with a truncheon and asking them nicely to stop.. especially if those canisters had been real explosive devices.
The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least
Even if he got promoted onto the shortlist of 3-5,000 the security services only have the resources to watch a couple of hundred or so around the clock. It was suggested at the time of Lee Rigby they would need to be increased in size by atleast 20 fold to have a chance of watching all the people even just on the short list of known risks.
I am thinking that anyone on the list who makes a trip to Syria or Libya etc. is worth a bit if extra temporary investigation? But I really have no idea how many people that would be.
Nate Silver form on previous uk GEs isn't very good and that is before he swapped to spending all his time managing a big team who make their real money from sports analytics.
BBC have just described Yvette Cooper as chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee - which surely isn't the case. You can't have a parliamentary position when we don't currently have a House of Commons
The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least
Even if he got promoted onto the shortlist of 3-5,000 the security services only have the resources to watch a couple of hundred or so around the clock. It was suggested at the time of Lee Rigby they would need to be increased in size by atleast 20 fold to have a chance of watching all the people even just on the short list of known risks.
I am thinking that anyone on the list who makes a trip to Syria or Libya etc. is worth a bit if extra temporary investigation? But I really have no idea how many people that would be.
Apparently around 800, about 2-3 times what they can watch at one time, and that would mean pulling surveillance off all the hate preachers and other troublemakers.
His final analysis is since there is a wide range then focus on the average of the polls and not any individual one but be prepared for a wide range of outcomes! I do note that the average of the polls from yesterday added 4.6% to the lead of the Tories from the raw figures.
Nate Silver's analysis - If you're a cautious gambler, no bet.
Silvers analysis is essentially "I have no idea".
Isn't that everyone's analysis right now?
It's just that most of us don't write 3,500 words of having no idea.
BBC have just described Yvette Cooper as chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee - which surely isn't the case. You can't have a parliamentary position when we don't currently have a House of Commons
They actually said may and the home secretary sit down and decide the terror level again last night.....
The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least
Even if he got promoted onto the shortlist of 3-5,000 the security services only have the resources to watch a couple of hundred or so around the clock. It was suggested at the time of Lee Rigby they would need to be increased in size by atleast 20 fold to have a chance of watching all the people even just on the short list of known risks.
Clearly there are not the personnel to trail people round the clock. But that's partly a red herring because there is a lot of electronic surveillance that can be done more-or-less for free: phone use; internet use; spending; travel. Sure, it won't stop the lone wolf who snaps and grabs a kitchen knife but Abedi had been flagged up, travelled to Syria and Libya (where his family has interesting connections) and then built his own bomb. That should have been spotted imo.
That still leaves cuts of 20,000 to the Police, 30,000 to the army, cuts to the security services, cuts to the emergency services, cuts to the NHS, - the Tories keeping the country safe? Answers please to T May, c/o 10 Downing Street - at least until June 9th.
Just to understand your logic.
Let's say that a Labour government is elected and decides to pay all nurses £1m a year (assuming there are 25,000 nurses) at a cost of £25bn.
Then the Tories are elected and cut their salaries to £100,000 each. This saves £22.5bn of which £10bn is invested in new hospitals and £12.5bn used to reduce the deficit.
The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least
Even if he got promoted onto the shortlist of 3-5,000 the security services only have the resources to watch a couple of hundred or so around the clock. It was suggested at the time of Lee Rigby they would need to be increased in size by atleast 20 fold to have a chance of watching all the people even just on the short list of known risks.
Clearly there are not the personnel to trail people round the clock. But that's partly a red herring because there is a lot of electronic surveillance that can be done more-or-less for free: phone use; internet use; spending; travel. Sure, it won't stop the lone wolf who snaps and grabs a kitchen knife but Abedi had been flagged up, travelled to Syria and Libya (where his family has interesting connections) and then built his own bomb. That should have been spotted imo.
Except when these characters borrow anothers passport and use cash/prepaid credit cards. And switch off their mobile phones...
BBC have just described Yvette Cooper as chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee - which surely isn't the case. You can't have a parliamentary position when we don't currently have a House of Commons
They actually said may and the home secretary sit down and decide the terror level again last night.....
Yes - I noticed that.
On the whole, the BBC have done well over the past 14 hours. However they sometimes can't help themselves with their inaccuracies and choice of guests to bring to air.
The election SHOULD BE SUSPENDED. Then all the resources required to tackle the main problem can be harnessed for that purpose. In my view it should have been suspended after Manchester, if not cancelled. There is a lot of codswallop spoken after these incidents, like we are open to business and we will carry on regardless etc. Suspending the election does not mean the terroists have won, it is just plain common sense. Indeed I doubt if the election is the stimulous for the attacks, they would probably have happened anyway.
I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.
And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.
They're calling themselves the Conservative and Unionist party on my partner's postal ballot paper. Since they haven't a scooby in our constituency, I assume that's the title on all the Scottish ballot papers.
Tbf it's not all that evident on their literature, it's mostly the Ruth Davidson party & the Ruth Davidson candidate.
I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.
And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.
They're calling themselves the Conservative and Unionist party on my partner's postal ballot paper. Since they haven't a scooby in our constituency, I assume that's the title on all the Scottish ballot papers.
Tbf it's not all that evident on their literature, it's mostly the Ruth Davidson party & the Ruth Davidson candidate.
I very much agree with thread header as well as recognising that - this morning - our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the bereaved as well as the injured.
Having said that I do wonder about how counter-productive our 'collective' response is to these events. At least one radio station changed its programming this morning and there is obviously a lot of publicity for this one event; does this not embolden terrorists?
If we repeatedly demonstrate that we can be thrown out of our normal routine each time these horrific events happen then I suspect that will be an additional reason for them to happen (not to mention the potential for copy-cat activities). I note, for example, that on the night after the Manchester bombing five people were killed in a car crash on the M6. Both events were tragic, both needed investigating, but only one received ongoing publicity and a tribute concert. I wonder whether we would be better celebrating our wonderful democratic way life rather than tragic death. I apologise if this offends anyone, but I think we are in danger of giving the terrorists the 'oxygen of publicity' that they seek for their cowardly ideology.
On a rare occasion, I totally agree with people like these:
Thatcher ... who said 'deny them the oxygen of publicity'. UKIP ... who say 'carry on campaigning'.
I wish the Liberal Democrats would do the same as UKIP. A party with that name should stand up for our civil liberties, even if the two main parties aren't prepared to do so.
I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.
And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.
They're calling themselves the Conservative and Unionist party on my partner's postal ballot paper. Since they haven't a scooby in our constituency, I assume that's the title on all the Scottish ballot papers.
Tbf it's not all that evident on their literature, it's mostly the Ruth Davidson party & the Ruth Davidson candidate.
Throwing alcohol containers at (possible) muslims is surely a hate crime?
Bloody Millwall fans...
You think I jest. An acquaintance who works in social services (dealing with the hard core fallout of broken families - the most horrible job I have ever heard described) sent me an email. Apparently, the concern (on work social media) among the 6 figure salary types is that last night there was a worrying level of violence by ordinary people in response to the attack - the cab driver trying to run over one of the attackers was mentioned, so he says.
Sky sources:first police officer on the scene (rugby player) took on all terrorists until he was forced to ground. Serious condition in hospital.
Incredibly brave.
Indeed so, Mr MoonbeamQC, hope he makes a full recovery.
As an aside, the lack of personal details of the terrorists circulating in the US press would suggest someone has had a quiet word with the American security agencies.
The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least
Even if he got promoted onto the shortlist of 3-5,000 the security services only have the resources to watch a couple of hundred or so around the clock. It was suggested at the time of Lee Rigby they would need to be increased in size by atleast 20 fold to have a chance of watching all the people even just on the short list of known risks.
Clearly there are not the personnel to trail people round the clock. But that's partly a red herring because there is a lot of electronic surveillance that can be done more-or-less for free: phone use; internet use; spending; travel. Sure, it won't stop the lone wolf who snaps and grabs a kitchen knife but Abedi had been flagged up, travelled to Syria and Libya (where his family has interesting connections) and then built his own bomb. That should have been spotted imo.
Its actually quite easy to be completely anonymous on the internet, it just involves a bit of know-how, a certain amount of money and some prepaid cellphones.
Even the suggestions from the government and others about breaking into things like WhatApp are really pretty pointless. The Signal Protocol it uses to do the encryption is free and open source so anyone can use it in their own app. https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android as are the algorithms, and we know that ISIS have some quite smart IT people working for them.
The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least
Even if he got promoted onto the shortlist of 3-5,000 the security services only have the resources to watch a couple of hundred or so around the clock. It was suggested at the time of Lee Rigby they would need to be increased in size by atleast 20 fold to have a chance of watching all the people even just on the short list of known risks.
Clearly there are not the personnel to trail people round the clock. But that's partly a red herring because there is a lot of electronic surveillance that can be done more-or-less for free: phone use; internet use; spending; travel. Sure, it won't stop the lone wolf who snaps and grabs a kitchen knife but Abedi had been flagged up, travelled to Syria and Libya (where his family has interesting connections) and then built his own bomb. That should have been spotted imo.
Except when these characters borrow anothers passport and use cash/prepaid credit cards. And switch off their mobile phones...
Those in themselves would be grounds for suspicion. Since Abedi seems to have been reported by half of Manchester (well, 5 or 6 people) I'm going to go out on a limb and say he was not that clever at covering his tracks. But yes, there will be some hypothetical super-terrorist mastermind who can fly under the radar.
"She said there was "too much tolerance of extremism in our country" and while it would involve "some difficult and embarrassing conversations", that must change."
Of all the things T May said this morning, one resonates with me. We need to tackle the safe areas within communities. Until the barriers to integration are removed between muslim areas and the rest of the UK there will always be zones within these areas that can harbour extremists.
I'd like t see a much more active role taken by these communities welcoming non muslims and generally demonstrting they are open to the country they've decided to move to and are willing to embrace the culture and laws of that country.
This is what is sadly lacking at the moment.
It may sound trivial but I think the manner of dress, both male and female plays a part. Not necessarily the burqa (although that is a big part) but the long flowing robes worn by the men. We see in the Sikh community the males wearing western clothing but satisfying their religious needs with the turban. Muslim males have no religious requirement to wear a particular type of clothes but most do as a sort of badge!
The election SHOULD BE SUSPENDED. Then all the resources required to tackle the main problem can be harnessed for that purpose. In my view it should have been suspended after Manchester, if not cancelled. There is a lot of codswallop spoken after these incidents, like we are open to business and we will carry on regardless etc. Suspending the election does not mean the terroists have won, it is just plain common sense. Indeed I doubt if the election is the stimulous for the attacks, they would probably have happened anyway.
Disagree completely. Suspending normal life means exactly that the terrorists have won. We step up security and intelligence gathering, but we keep calm and carry on as before.
I notice the labour spinners on here have been attacking tory government over police numbers in response to terrorist attack.
Let's just remember for a second. What did jez do when asked if he would support an ISIS fund raiser release from prison for Christmas, go absolutely no bloody way. Of course not, he supported them. FFS...Robbing old ladies to fund ISIS and jezza goes into bat for them.
Then Of course we have mcIRA who supported getting rid of the spooks. 10k more plods in panda cars but no F##king intelligence agencies, that will do the trick.
These people disgust me.
So you seriously use "labour spinners" in the same post as "mcIRA" I think you should save the disgust for yourself.
A man who supported the IRA...Just do one. These people are filth. Come back Ed you were a bit of a plonker but at heart a decent person.
You're entitled to your opinion, I personally believe that neither Corbyn nor McDonnell has ever supported the IRA, but I don't know and neither do you. But the fact I've got a different point of view doesn't make me a spinner any more than you are.
By cutting police numbers and giving them a 1% increase in 7 years because of this terrorist attack, the Tory majority will increase from 12 to 150.
What a result for the Tories. Cut services get more Tory MPs.
While Labour just want to abolish the security services and the armed police. Go and troll someone else.
Do you really think Labour want to abolish the security services and armed police? You think if there was somehow a Corbyn PM he would try to do this?
He doesn't believe in shoot to kill and when pressed on the issue about armed police numbers when asked if he would increase them instead of saying "Yes, more funding for the police and more armed police officers" he came out with he wishy washy "there will be enough."
BBC have just described Yvette Cooper as chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee - which surely isn't the case. You can't have a parliamentary position when we don't currently have a House of Commons
They actually said may and the home secretary sit down and decide the terror level again last night.....
"She said there was "too much tolerance of extremism in our country" and while it would involve "some difficult and embarrassing conversations", that must change."
This is May we are talking about, she isn't referring to Islamic extremism. She's just as much an appeaser over this than Labour types.
That still leaves cuts of 20,000 to the Police, 30,000 to the army, cuts to the security services, cuts to the emergency services, cuts to the NHS, - the Tories keeping the country safe? Answers please to T May, c/o 10 Downing Street - at least until June 9th.
Just to understand your logic.
Let's say that a Labour government is elected and decides to pay all nurses £1m a year (assuming there are 25,000 nurses) at a cost of £25bn.
Then the Tories are elected and cut their salaries to £100,000 each. This saves £22.5bn of which £10bn is invested in new hospitals and £12.5bn used to reduce the deficit.
The election SHOULD BE SUSPENDED. Then all the resources required to tackle the main problem can be harnessed for that purpose. In my view it should have been suspended after Manchester, if not cancelled. There is a lot of codswallop spoken after these incidents, like we are open to business and we will carry on regardless etc. Suspending the election does not mean the terroists have won, it is just plain common sense. Indeed I doubt if the election is the stimulous for the attacks, they would probably have happened anyway.
Disagree completely. Suspending normal life means exactly that the terrorists have won. We step up security and intelligence gathering, but we keep calm and carry on as before.
And just how long would we carry on with a government but not parliament? Parliament cannot be 'un-dissolved'.
The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least
Even if he got promoted onto the shortlist of 3-5,000 the security services only have the resources to watch a couple of hundred or so around the clock. It was suggested at the time of Lee Rigby they would need to be increased in size by atleast 20 fold to have a chance of watching all the people even just on the short list of known risks.
Clearly there are not the personnel to trail people round the clock. But that's partly a red herring because there is a lot of electronic surveillance that can be done more-or-less for free: phone use; internet use; spending; travel. Sure, it won't stop the lone wolf who snaps and grabs a kitchen knife but Abedi had been flagged up, travelled to Syria and Libya (where his family has interesting connections) and then built his own bomb. That should have been spotted imo.
Its actually quite easy to be completely anonymous on the internet, it just involves a bit of know-how, a certain amount of money and some prepaid cellphones.
Even the suggestions from the government and others about breaking into things like WhatApp are really pretty pointless. The Signal Protocol it uses to do the encryption is free and open source so anyone can use it in their own app. https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android as are the algorithms, and we know that ISIS have some quite smart IT people working for them.
Yes but if the spooks are already watching you, then you are not anonymous. They can tell who you are talking to, even if they cannot read what you are saying to them, which means they can see your networks (as was developed at Bletchley before cracking Enigma became routine). They can tell if you go out but your phone doesn't, or if your phone and a burner phone travel together. But yes -- I agree on the futility and even counterproductive nature of May/Rudd's requests for weakened encryption.
The election SHOULD BE SUSPENDED. Then all the resources required to tackle the main problem can be harnessed for that purpose.
I think a lot of them are different resources. For example, what proportion of returning officers combine that job with armed police emergency response? I doubt it's more than 20%.
Comments
They don't sit in a police station waiting for a call.
it's the Gardai who made the link to PIRA and SF,
do you know better than they do ?
Tactical voting in a safe seat is at least a novel approach, for sure
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39810721
"In theory, these ARVs should never be more than eight minutes away from the scene of an incident".
I'd add:
1) Tackle the Saudi issue. Their finance and malign influence on British schools and mosques is unacceptable. UK arms suppliers will complain but our security is more important.
2) Increase resources for policing and anti-terrorism (and for God's sake don't mention the magic money tree). The issue doesn't seem to be in identifying suspects but in monitoring and managing them. More mass surveillance isn't the answer. More manpower is.
3) More explicitly support the Palestinian cause e.g. by recognising Palestine and risk upsetting Israel. This would have widespread support in the UK but it also helps neutralise the grievances exploited by the radicalisers of weak young men.
If I were Corbyn, I would go with these.
On the reaction and u-turn issue, perhaps. I would not blanket support whatever eventually gets proposed, but I appreciated the intent at least. The manifesto was to my mind more realistic and achievable, even if there's plenty in there I do not like.
I still haven't read the Green manifesto, I must get around to it
the Gardai are saying is criminal gangs linked to PIRA and SF, they wouldnt have added that if it was just pure crims
you clearly dont get how some of these guys work
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/former-sinn-fein-councillor-waterboarded-fraudster-ll65c78j0
I think that it would make sense for somone low-key like Marr to interview the party leaders on the specific question of "What would you do to address this?" without going into what's wrong with other parties etc. Peoplre would appreciate some guidance, it's obviously relevant to the election, but few want a snarly slanging match right now.
The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least
If it is right for Corbyn to make a political point about police numbers (as he did in his remarks to the BBC), it is absolutely right for the UK PM to make a robust statement.
Enough is Enough is what will resonate for the rest of today. And that is a sentiment that many will share.
We got away with 3 in Northern Ireland by maintaining an overly hard-line against any concliliation in public whilst working away furiously in private to try and resolve or neutralise the discrimination and grievances, and talking to the terrorists whilst insisting that we weren't. But the Middle East isn't our conflict to manage, and besides Mr Trump wants to sort it out himself.
Having said that I do wonder about how counter-productive our 'collective' response is to these events. At least one radio station changed its programming this morning and there is obviously a lot of publicity for this one event; does this not embolden terrorists?
If we repeatedly demonstrate that we can be thrown out of our normal routine each time these horrific events happen then I suspect that will be an additional reason for them to happen (not to mention the potential for copy-cat activities). I note, for example, that on the night after the Manchester bombing five people were killed in a car crash on the M6. Both events were tragic, both needed investigating, but only one received ongoing publicity and a tribute concert. I wonder whether we would be better celebrating our wonderful democratic way life rather than tragic death. I apologise if this offends anyone, but I think we are in danger of giving the terrorists the 'oxygen of publicity' that they seek for their cowardly ideology.
I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.
And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.
The above is obviously predicated on the country not going bonkers on Thursday.
This is something the Saudis have severely clamped down on in recent times, as ISIL have risen in Iran and Syria. Moderate muslims in Oman, UAE and Jordan are very worried about terrorism turning up closer to their home as well as abroad.
This was a key part of Trump's visit to the region last week, and his words on the need to root out extremists and the funding were approved by the leaders of the GCC countries other than Qatar.
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/renewed-tensions-with-qatar-arise-from-old-unresolved-issues
No choice really is it?
As was John Nott and David Renton (John Major's predecessor in Huntingdon).
Not an unreasonable conclusion in a lot of gambling though - "unknown unknowns" and all that. Unjustified confidence is where so many go wrong.
What a result for the Tories. Cut services get more Tory MPs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32026985
It's just that most of us don't write 3,500 words of having no idea.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/04/hero-of-london-threw-bottles-and-chairs-at-terrorists-to-stop-them-stabbing-victims-6683054/
Throwing alcohol containers at (possible) muslims is surely a hate crime?
Incredibly brave.
Let's say that a Labour government is elected and decides to pay all nurses £1m a year (assuming there are 25,000 nurses) at a cost of £25bn.
Then the Tories are elected and cut their salaries to £100,000 each. This saves £22.5bn of which £10bn is invested in new hospitals and £12.5bn used to reduce the deficit.
Are these "Tory cuts" a good thing or not?
On the whole, the BBC have done well over the past 14 hours. However they sometimes can't help themselves with their inaccuracies and choice of guests to bring to air.
Tbf it's not all that evident on their literature, it's mostly the Ruth Davidson party & the Ruth Davidson candidate.
https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/871254955721723904
8 mins/1 stop on the train from me... grrrreat
https://twitter.com/dailymailuk/status/871318153875378176
Thatcher ... who said 'deny them the oxygen of publicity'.
UKIP ... who say 'carry on campaigning'.
I wish the Liberal Democrats would do the same as UKIP. A party with that name should stand up for our civil liberties, even if the two main parties aren't prepared to do so.
You think if there was somehow a Corbyn PM he would try to do this?
As an aside, the lack of personal details of the terrorists circulating in the US press would suggest someone has had a quiet word with the American security agencies.
Even the suggestions from the government and others about breaking into things like WhatApp are really pretty pointless. The Signal Protocol it uses to do the encryption is free and open source so anyone can use it in their own app. https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android as are the algorithms, and we know that ISIS have some quite smart IT people working for them.
"She said there was "too much tolerance of extremism in our country" and while it would involve "some difficult and embarrassing conversations", that must change."
I'd say you are on the wrong site mate.
I'd like t see a much more active role taken by these communities welcoming non muslims and generally demonstrting they are open to the country they've decided to move to and are willing to embrace the culture and laws of that country.
This is what is sadly lacking at the moment.
It may sound trivial but I think the manner of dress, both male and female plays a part. Not necessarily the burqa (although that is a big part) but the long flowing robes worn by the men. We see in the Sikh community the males wearing western clothing but satisfying their religious needs with the turban. Muslim males have no religious requirement to wear a particular type of clothes but most do as a sort of badge!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325294/Disarm-police-scrap-MI5-Labour-new-security-storm-demands-backed-shadow-chancellor-John-McDonnell.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Cross
If what is reported about the officer is 25% true he should get one.
Cooper former Head of Committee.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12005431/John-McDonnell-signed-letter-calling-for-MI5-and-armed-police-to-be-disbanded.html
Then again, she also thinks Mao, the greatest mass murderer in history, did "more good than harm." (2008 on the BBC)
Our prospective home secretary, ladies and gentleman.