the snap general election thread

kabayiri

gfplux wrote: »

...
In my opinion while the Government is responsible for this Theresa May personally has been at the heart of this particular issue during those 7 years.
I am not suggesting anybody else could have done better but it is the Conservatives who have been in charge and therefore they need to be held to account.

...and if Labour get in we would have Diane Abbott in charge of these matters.

I can't think of a single redeeming quality she would bring to the role.

If she goes in to hiding during an election campaign, letting Emily Thornberry deal with the questions, she is going to cut and run at the first sign of difficulty during her time in office.

Crime overall is a complex picture. In certain areas we are doing better, but it's important to recognize emerging trends like knife crime in inner London. Over in Liverpool you get turf wars over drugs.

Tromking

Joe_Horner wrote: »

How does that follow from stopping selling arms for them to pass on to the people who're killing us? Genuinely confused by your logical disconnect there.

As others have said, the logical disconnect is yours and quite deliberate on your part I would suggest.
As usual with guilt ridden 'Socialists' you can give it the big one ad infinitum when it comes to the actions of the British State, especially a Tory one, but when it comes to extending your logic a bit wider to British based Muslims in this case, then it becomes a tad more problematic for you, doesn't it?

kabayiri

Slightly OT, but....

Did anyone catch the debate on LBC, Saturday morning?

It featured a small group of young people, mostly student age. Roughly one for each of the main parties.

In short, they were *simply excellent*. They were lucid and clear, and even acknowledged when their opponent made a good point. Above all, they listened to each other and the show host.

I wish the bunch of self centred; thick skinned; career politicians we have at the moment could have listened and learnt something.

IveSeenTheLight

BobQ wrote: »

I wonder what impact tactical voting will have on this?

I used to think little impact as it would be hard to organise the electorate to vote one way or another, however I have seen very locally a prime example of "paper candidates" where there is a candidate for Labour and Lib Dems in my area, but they are not actively campaigning and I have seen no literature from these parties.
This is effectively leaving it to a straight choice between the Conservatives and SNP.

It does kind of mock the unionist parties position of campaigning in every seat, when they clearly do not campaign in certain areas.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Which is why there's a chain of command that allows decisions to be made at various levels rather than all having to filter to the top .

Yes. You are making a constitutional point - mine is simply more practical and about backing the people you ask to do the difficult job on the ground.

While I don't share your complete viewpoint - I agree with the majority of what you say. It is what makes our country strong and stable to quote a phrase.

The policy who shot the three terrorists didn't though have two hours or need extensive consultation.

Still true that if the PM or the government is not clearly behind you - it is not a good thing to have in your mind.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I used to think little impact as it would be hard to organise the electorate to vote one way or another, however I have seen very locally a prime example of "paper candidates" where there is a candidate for Labour and Lib Dems in my area, but they are not actively campaigning and I have seen no literature from these parties.
This is effectively leaving it to a straight choice between the Conservatives and SNP.

It does kind of mock the unionist parties position of campaigning in every seat, when they clearly do not campaign in certain areas.

You know full well that it is no such thing as mocking the unionist parties.
After having to have it explained to you in the "Fish" thread, wasn't it?
It is a direct response to the SNP and their attitudes and it says a lot about the strength of anti-SNP sentiment in Scotland when parties decide to combine forces against them.

Will it work?
We will see.

Nationally then, against the Conservatives?
Extremely doubtful.

IveSeenTheLight

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

You know full well that it is no such thing as mocking the unionist parties.
After having to have it explained to you in the "Fish" thread, wasn't it?

I do not recall any such thing.
I may have overlooked as I tend to do with most of your posts nowadays.
May I suggest you enlighten me to this apparent explanation to myself. Which post was it?

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

It is a direct response to the SNP and their attitudes and it says a lot about the strength of anti-SNP sentiment in Scotland when parties decide to combine forces against them.

Possibly.
Red, Blue, Orange............ They're all merging into one

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Will it work?
We will see.

Indeed, lets see, as your so contrived to cross thread, here was my response

IveSeenTheLight wrote:

The electorate have their opportunity to vote on Thursday and I'm confident that the SNP will return more MP's in Scotland than all other parties combined.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I do not recall any such thing.
I may have overlooked as I tend to do with most of your posts nowadays.
Try instead "many posts" full stop.
May I suggest you enlighten me to this apparent explanation to myself. Which post was it?
See link below.


Possibly.
Red, Blue, Orange............ They're all merging into one



Indeed, lets see, as your so contrived to cross thread, here was my response

A link to you receiving an explanation of what a "paper candidate" is: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=72636638&postcount=11316

It's not about crossing threads, it's about correcting your attempted deceits.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Blair and Brown were going to reduce child poverty. No one still holds them to account for their failure to do so.

I would take any politicians words with a pinch of salt. As a consequence will remain satisfied if matters are improving , albeit slowly. Unfortunately no one else is offering the same reassurance. This frightens me as to their financial competency. Magic money trees are in short supply these days.

I reckon reducing the GDP deficit from 6.9% to 0.6%is something I would take if you had offered it to me in 2010.

Better than doubling or worse which seems to be the alternative approach proposed?

.string.

gfplux wrote: »

For me the present issue over security comes down to numbers.

From fast moving reports in the media do I understand correctly the following?
There are 3000 individuals who represent a high threat of a terrorist act
There are an additional 20,000 (or 17,000) who might be of interest.

Since 2010 there are 20,000 less Police officers including 1,300 trained firearms officers.

The terrible incident in London show that IMMEDIATE response worked well.

The issue surely is that with large numbers of potential terrorists who need WATCHING in some way having 20,000 less officers around makes that job more difficult even if all the other Police are working more efficiently with mobile phones and tablets.
A Government is expected to foresee the security needs of the country. Security is or SHOULD NOT be on the list of things that can have spending cut.
The present Government have spent seven years cutting the money spent on Britains internal security and that should be considered unexeptable.

In my opinion while the Government is responsible for this Theresa May personally has been at the heart of this particular issue during those 7 years.
I am not suggesting anybody else could have done better but it is the Conservatives who have been in charge and therefore they need to be held to account.

While. I agree concede that the number of police should be reviewed in the light of the changing nature of the terrorist threat, I don't concede that local community police are the way to go. They may have value in good PR for community relations but as far as helping to monitor those suspected of terrorism ambitions, they're hardly then right asset.

I suggest reading ding this report

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11251792/Only-a-fraction-of-terror-suspects-can-be-watched-247.html

That states that between 20 and 25 (trained) intelligence staff are required to track each individual. For 2 to 3 thousand suspects, that implies 40,000 to 75,000
Intelligence officers. Of course eg it would not be that money but one can see the ballpark we're getting into if we think in terms of solving this problem by increase in manpower​. That link estimates the number of people that can currently be tracked as 50.

It is indeed a matter of numbers.

It's clear that given the scale of the problem that "smart" means need to be deployed such as new arrest/confinement or even deportation laws greater AI-driven electronic tracking systems for phone or internet or even people (camera surveyance) and so forth.

The concentration on hiring more friendly neighbourhood Bobbies may strike a chord with some but it's not, definitely not, the way forward. It's a political fiction.