the snap general election thread

posh*spice

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You have to question why under a Conservative government for the last 7 years, where Theresa May was Home Secretary for the bulk of that time, has security reduced and risk increased.

Those are actions, not words and not a strong position to be in at the moment

We're under attack because ISIS has decided the UK is it's next target.

And we've 3000 loonies running amok willing to do their bidding because we've been tolerating this !!!! for too long

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You have to question why under a Conservative government for the last 7 years, where Theresa May was Home Secretary for the bulk of that time, has security reduced and risk increased.

Those are actions, not words and not a strong position to be in at the moment

You have either ignored or not read post #2208 (with thanks to mrginge):

mrginge wrote: »

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.

And even that does not answer the question of what services you think should have been cut (more?) instead?
Less nurses/doctors etc?
Less teachers?
Or would you instead opt to not decrease the deficit?

Just face facts; no matter what is done to balance the budget someone somewhere ain't gonna be happy.
Or are you the sort of person that happily lives day-to-day on credit without thinking how you will pay if things change?

posh*spice

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

You have either ignored or not read post #2208 (with thanks to mrginge):


And even that does not answer the question of what services you think should have been cut (more?) instead?
Less nurses/doctors etc?
Less teachers?
Or would you instead opt to not decrease the deficit?

Just face facts; no matter what is done to balance the budget someone somewhere ain't gonna be happy.
Or are you the sort of person that happily lives day-to-day on credit without thinking how you will pay if things change?

Crime has fallen under TM

A_Medium_Size_Jock

posh*spice wrote: »

Crime has fallen under TM

Ah but nowadays thanks to forums such as these you can't let a little thing like fact get in the way of propaganda.
Haven't you noticed?

posh*spice

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Ah but nowadays thanks to forums such as these you can't let a little thing like fact get in the way of propaganda.
Haven't you noticed?

Well here's another fact - in 2015 the two Eds wanted to cut police by a further 10%

michaels

Arklight wrote: »

No one has predicted that Labour will win the election. We're discussing the electoral process, the collapse in the polls of the Tories, and wondering what Parliament will look like on Friday.

As far as I can judge, Tory support in the polls has declined from mid 40s to low 40s - is that a collapse?

Labour support has surged from low 20s to high 30s - definitely a surge.

Spidernick wrote: »

That's because the BBC is biased.

Hang on, scrap that, the BBC is only biased when it reports things against the Tories. Sorry, I forgot that. Move along - nothing to see here! :whistle:

Surely is something is trending that means people have read it which implies nothing about the BBC editorial policy - or are you suggesting the BBC has displayed this old article prominently on every page to encourage people to click through?

posh*spice

JC's Shoot to Kill views are widely available everywhere - you don't have to go to the BBC - try the guardian if that's what you like

posh*spice

By the way 7/7 happened on Blair's watch - i don't remember the Tories trying to blame Labour - they put the blame sqaurely it should be - WITH THE TERRORISTS

michaels

posh*spice wrote: »

Crime has fallen under TM

There is a lot of evidence that the number of hours of police time out of the station has not fallen by nearly as much as the total officer count - for example giving officers smart phones lets them do stuff outside the station that would previously required a trip back to the station including time wasted traveling. So fewer officers can do more with the right technology - it is called increased efficiency.

There has also been a sustained fall in crime - not just from police reporting of incidents but from the respected British Crime survey which measures all crime not just that reported to the police. Reducing Police numbers commensurate with the fall in crime rates sounds sensible.

However if there is also a requirement for a certain police strength to deal with and deter terrorist instruments and this has been miscalculated then tat would be a mistake.

Except that with a limited pool of resources grown up politicians have to make trade-offs every day - spend £1bn more on policing a year to save an unknown number of deaths from terrorism (ranging in the past few years from zero to more than 30) and definitely have £1bn less to spend on the NHS which might cost a definite 100 lives in longer delays for cancer treatment.

It is wonderful to be in a six form politics class or leader of the opposition and be able to promise everything to everyone, harder to actually have to make these life changing decisions week in week out.

Spidernick

michaels wrote: »

Surely is something is trending that means people have read it which implies nothing about the BBC editorial policy - or are you suggesting the BBC has displayed this old article prominently on every page to encourage people to click through?

I thought I was being clear, but perhaps not. The point was the very existence of a BBC potentially anti-Corbyn article, rather than the fact that it was trending.