the snap general election thread

mrginge

mayonnaise wrote: »

Theresa May must resign over 'security failures' that led to recent terror attacks, says David Cameron's former policy guru




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-resign-security-failures-steve-hilton-london-attack-manchester-westminster-terror-david-a7772931.html

In other words, David Cameron's mate says 'the buck stops right before it lands on my old boss' desk'

If only DC had carried through on his promises (copyright wotsthat) by ripping even more cost out of public services....

bobbymotors

Arklight wrote: »

Not to be pedantic, but saying that a politician who is up for election is unelectable is a non sequitur.

He's electable by virtue of being in an election.

What you mean is that you aren't very keen on him and won't vote for him and all your friends think the same. Which isn't quite the same thing.

No, I mean h is unelectable in the same way that Foot, Kinnock and Milliband were unelectable. Just not PM material.

Anyway, if you think Corbyn will do so well, fancy a bet for charity?

if labour win the most seats, £10 of mine to £1 of yours
Labour to get an overall majority £25 of mine to £1 of yours
Labour to get >240 seats £5 of mine to £1 of yours

If I win it goes to Marie Curie, will post paypal notice or whatever on here.

You can send yours to the Labour party if you like, I think they will need it.

I'm happy to risk £2000.

So that's £200 of your money option 1
£80 option 2
£400 option 3.

Well, do you feel lucky?

Will stand on this till midnight tonight.

Filo25

mrginge wrote: »

In other words, David Cameron's mate says 'the buck stops right before it lands on my old boss' desk'

If only DC had carried through on his promises (copyright wotsthat) by ripping even more cost out of public services....

Hilton isn't on too great terms with Cameron these days I thought.

His comment is over the top but equally its difficult for May to say "Enough is Enough" and make out that policy is inadequate in this area when she has been in charge of that policy to some extent for 7 years now.

Tromking

mayonnaise wrote: »

Theresa May must resign over 'security failures' that led to recent terror attacks, says David Cameron's former policy guru

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-resign-security-failures-steve-hilton-london-attack-manchester-westminster-terror-david-a7772931.html

TM`s alleged culpability would certainly explain the tenor of her Downing Street speech yesterday morning. It certainly smacked of a politician desperately talking tough to cover up her own personal involvement in the rationing of money for our public services.

mrginge

Filo25 wrote: »

Hilton isn't on too great terms with Cameron these days I thought.

His comment is over the top but its difficult for May to say Enough is Enough and make out that policy is inadequate in this area when she has been in charge of that policy to some extent for 7 years now.

Indeed it is.

And yet just three months ago all I heard was that the security services were doing a great job, alongside repeated warnings that it would be impossible to stop every potential attack.

If we now suddenly discover the policy has been inadequate for 7 years, why haven't there been attacks every other week? Perhaps it's that the policy is *now* inadequate and needs beefing up, but let's not make out that DC and his policy advisor (surprise surprise) are whiter than white.

kabayiri

Tromking wrote: »

TM`s alleged culpability would certainly explain the tenor of her Downing Street speech yesterday morning. It certainly smacked of a politician desperately talking tough to cover up her own personal involvement in the rationing of money for our public services.

They all looked exposed IMO.

I thought Sadiq Khan sounded unsure as well.

It doesn't take a genius to work out when a politician is saying the same things after the Westminster bridge attack; after the Manchester attack; after the London Bridge attack...you start to glaze over and assume they are going through the motions.

I think May was trying to inject some freshness into her voice. She has no new answers though.

Enterprise_1701C

To my mind the terrorists are trying to make May look weak.

They are desperate for Corbyn to get into power, that way they could bring in all their mates, they could happily live off the state whilst plotting further atrocities, knowing all the time that the police would no longer be allowed to shoot them.

It was not so long ago that Diane Abbott wanted to abolish MI5 and Special Branch, probably because they were doing too much to stop her mates in the IRA. Can you imagine the task we would haver on our hands if that had happened?

Filo25

mrginge wrote: »

Indeed it is.

And yet just three months ago all I heard was that the security services were doing a great job, alongside repeated warnings that it would be impossible to stop every potential attack.

If we now suddenly discover the policy has been inadequate for 7 years, why haven't there been attacks every other week? Perhaps it's that the policy is *now* inadequate and needs beefing up, but let's not make out that DC and his policy advisor (surprise surprise) are whiter than white.

I actually think these kind of attacks are phenomenally difficult to stop no matter how well resourced the security services are, which is why I found the tone yesterday a bit odd, given it was coming from the person responsible for this area either as Home Sec or PM for the last 7 years.

kabayiri wrote: »

They all looked exposed IMO.

I thought Sadiq Khan sounded unsure as well.

It doesn't take a genius to work out when a politician is saying the same things after the Westminster bridge attack; after the Manchester attack; after the London Bridge attack...you start to glaze over and assume they are going through the motions.

I think May was trying to inject some freshness into her voice. She has no new answers though.

Fair comment, there aren't any easy answers on this, you can't magically make this go away, it will be a slow grind in terms of continuing to improve intelligence (which isn't likely to be of huge use in attacks like this which don't require much coordination or planning) and continuing anti-radicalisation efforts, which is the most important single thing we can do, we should be continually evaluating whether what we are doing in this area is as effective as it can be.

In terms of the security forces response to the actual attack, it would seem to me that you can't fault it, 8 minutes from first contact to all of the attackers being eliminated seems impressive.

Filo25

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

To my mind the terrorists are trying to make May look weak.

They are desperate for Corbyn to get into power, that way they could bring in all their mates, they could happily live off the state whilst plotting further atrocities, knowing all the time that the police would no longer be allowed to shoot them.

It was not so long ago that Diane Abbott wanted to abolish MI5 and Special Branch, probably because they were doing too much to stop her mates in the IRA. Can you imagine the task we would haver on our hands if that had happened?

If you gave "ISIS" a choice of government it would probably be UKIP, they would easily be the best tool they could have in their radicalising efforts.

Have we learnt nothing from the hugely negative impact of internment in Northern Ireland.

CKhalvashi

https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/

Cons down another 3 seats, Labour up 7 on pre-attack numbers.

The opposition 5 have now found the 10 seats required for a majority, so this is now even more interesting.