Burnham has uttered the nothing to do with Islam mantra today. The guy rightly called.him out on this and how it is totally counter productive.
As well as being dishonest, Interestingly a recent freakonomics podcast also provided evidence from the US that this kind of state actually doesn't even achieve the desired aim of calming matters, it was shown to stoke more anger.
One of my least favourite cliches, one that presumes we are all a mob waiting to happen, where if you acknowledge part of a group has a problem, we will descent en masse on the whole group, when I'd like to think our society is robust enough to be more than that, and denying any connection just creates anger. 'No connection to true x' would be better at least, if he said that.
It's one reason I like the BBC usually go with 'so called Islamic state' - it acknowledges what they claim and what unfortunately too many people in the world believe about their claims, but indicates skepticism of that, and the misuse of the word islamic should, one hopes, anger those who disagree with IS.
The Beeb is question whether they are "state" not whether they are Islamic....
Whatever the intent, the effect is that you can interpret the so-called for both, and it leaves in place the word Islamic rather than denying it is relevant that they call themselves that and too many agree with them.
One place I wouldn't bet on the Tories personally, Manchester and surrounds. Locally I reckon the whole vibe might have played out well for Labour there, seeing as Andy Burnham is the mayor. Before the anti-Burnham comments start, remember he scored way above par in the Mayoral election there. At the very least the pro-Tory effect there will be alot more muted compared to other parts I'd guess.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
Corbyn came in to 11.5 for PM after the election, which I've taken a view against. Think he's drifted out to ~ 13 since.
It's surprising how similar the odds are for No Overall Majority and for Corbyn to be PM after the GE.
I would have thought there should be quite a significant difference - if Con get 313 seats then May must be 100% certain to remain PM (at least in the short-term) with DUP/UUP support.
Even a bit below 313 it's surely inconceivable that the LDs would agree to Corbyn becoming PM - they've said no to any coalition but even a supply / confidence deal would surely be dependent upon a new mainstream Labour leader.
In which case I would have thought May would continue as PM, at least in the short-run, as long as she has say 300 seats (assuming LDs at least 12).
I imagine that there's quite a few people who would lay Corbyn at the prevailing prices more aggressively than has been the case if it wasn't such an awful double whammy to lose the bet and have him as next PM. For similar reasons I might hesitate to lay 1.01s on Abbott to be next Home Sec.
I like a bit of safety margin when my liability is over 4 figures.
About £1500 for me. I've got a nice profit on the Corbyn to exit before next GE market as an offset to this risk though. In part I traded one against the other.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
Corbyn came in to 11.5 for PM after the election, which I've taken a view against. Think he's drifted out to ~ 13 since.
It's surprising how similar the odds are for No Overall Majority and for Corbyn to be PM after the GE.
I would have thought there should be quite a significant difference - if Con get 313 seats then May must be 100% certain to remain PM (at least in the short-term) with DUP/UUP support.
Even a bit below 313 it's surely inconceivable that the LDs would agree to Corbyn becoming PM - they've said no to any coalition but even a supply / confidence deal would surely be dependent upon a new mainstream Labour leader.
In which case I would have thought May would continue as PM, at least in the short-run, as long as she has say 300 seats (assuming LDs at least 12).
The Lib Dems couldn't demand a new leader. It'd be like in 2010 was when Brown resigned: that was the moment I knew that Cameron was about to become PM.
If the Lib Dems wanted to back Labour then Corbyn would be the only game in town. There simply wouldn't be time for Labour to select someone else and Corbyn at least would surely refuse to resign anyway if he'd just gained seats, as he would have done in that situation.
Eugh. I've just seen the worst post yet about the GE on my Facebook timeline.
It reads 'Juuuuust in case anyone was still voting conservative, imagine last nights heartbreaking tragedy happening with a privatised NHS. That's all.'
Feels kind of surreal seeing the pictures of armed soldiers on the streets around Parliament and I assume elsewhere across the country. But totally a necessary move if the intelligence points to a real threat of attack in the coming days.
Happy to see the government going to such lengths to protect people.
(Possibly ridiculously) it reminds me of 1970s Dr. Who, when the Brigadier and his brigade seemed to turn out at the drop of a sonic screwdriver.
Hey, if it prevent Daleks on Westminster Bridge......
Feels kind of surreal seeing the pictures of armed soldiers on the streets around Parliament and I assume elsewhere across the country. But totally a necessary move if the intelligence points to a real threat of attack in the coming days.
Happy to see the government going to such lengths to protect people.
(Possibly ridiculously) it reminds me of 1970s Dr. Who, when the Brigadier and his brigade seemed to turn out at the drop of a sonic screwdriver.
Hey, if it prevent Daleks on Westminster Bridge......
They can't use the whole Corbyn etc are terrorist sympathisers/supporters etc now because it would look like they are exploiting a tragedy.
That's why they won't (shouldn't) make it about terrorism overtly. As others have said, the media and public will do that anyway.
The Tory campaign should simply focus on which leader and which team have the experience and ability to lead the country through the difficult demands of the next few years.
One place I wouldn't bet on the Tories personally, Manchester and surrounds. Locally I reckon the whole vibe might have played out well for Labour there, seeing as Andy Burnham is the mayor. Before the anti-Burnham comments start, remember he scored way above par in the Mayoral election there. At the very least the pro-Tory effect there will be alot more muted compared to other parts I'd guess.
Celebrating my birthday in Manchester as news of the Manchester Arena bomb broke. The anger is monumental. For what reason will this ever stop?
Theresa May says such attacks "will not break us", but her own life is lived in a bullet-proof bubble, and she evidently does not need to identify any young people today in Manchester morgues. Also, "will not break us" means that the tragedy will not break her, or her policies on immigration. The young people of Manchester are already broken - thanks all the same, Theresa. Sadiq Khan says "London is united with Manchester", but he does not condemn Islamic State - who have claimed responsibility for the bomb. The Queen receives absurd praise for her 'strong words' against the attack, yet she does not cancel today's garden party at Buckingham Palace - for which no criticism is allowed in the Britain of free press. Manchester mayor Andy Burnham says the attack is the work of an "extremist". An extreme what? An extreme rabbit? In modern Britain everyone seems petrified to officially say what we all say in private. Politicians tell us they are unafraid, but they are never the victims. How easy to be unafraid when one is protected from the line of fire. The people have no such protections.
Presumably that means Andrew Neil's interview with Corbyn goes ahead on Friday.
I imagine he'll then have to interview Nuttall, Farron and Sturgeon next week - probably Mon, Tue and Thur so as not to be on the same evening as the BBC debate (Wed) or BBC QT (Fri).
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
Same as every time an attack happens and there was a level of 'being known' - do the public think its impossible to keep an eye on everyone of interest, yes, and will they accept without political consequences that it happened to happen here that one slipped through. Usually, yes.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
Celebrating my birthday in Manchester as news of the Manchester Arena bomb broke. The anger is monumental. For what reason will this ever stop?
Theresa May says such attacks "will not break us", but her own life is lived in a bullet-proof bubble, and she evidently does not need to identify any young people today in Manchester morgues. Also, "will not break us" means that the tragedy will not break her, or her policies on immigration. The young people of Manchester are already broken - thanks all the same, Theresa. Sadiq Khan says "London is united with Manchester", but he does not condemn Islamic State - who have claimed responsibility for the bomb. The Queen receives absurd praise for her 'strong words' against the attack, yet she does not cancel today's garden party at Buckingham Palace - for which no criticism is allowed in the Britain of free press. Manchester mayor Andy Burnham says the attack is the work of an "extremist". An extreme what? An extreme rabbit? In modern Britain everyone seems petrified to officially say what we all say in private. Politicians tell us they are unafraid, but they are never the victims. How easy to be unafraid when one is protected from the line of fire. The people have no such protections.
Morrissey 23 May 2017.
Morrissey seems to have a very short memory as we come up to the anniversary of Jo Cox. No politician is completely protected from the line of fire and whereas, for most of us, the chances of being caught up in a terrorist incident are tiny and down to pure bad luck, politicians are very much a prime target.
Unfortunately he is behaving like a bit of a twat.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
Corbyn came in to 11.5 for PM after the election, which I've taken a view against. Think he's drifted out to ~ 13 since.
It's surprising how similar the o In which case I would have thought May would continue as PM, at least in the short-run, as long as she has say 300 seats (assuming LDs at least 12).
The Lib Dems couldn't demand a new leader. It'd be like in 2010 was when Brown resigned: that was the moment I knew that Cameron was about to become PM.
If the Lib Dems wanted to back Labour then Corbyn would be the only game in town. There simply wouldn't be time for Labour to select someone else and Corbyn at least would surely refuse to resign anyway if he'd just gained seats, as he would have done in that situation.
The Prime Minister just has to have the confidence of Parliament. They don't have to be party leader at that point do they ?
If 326 MPs of all shades thought Kier Starmer could form a government, how would the Labour leadership elections process play into that ?
One place I wouldn't bet on the Tories personally, Manchester and surrounds. Locally I reckon the whole vibe might have played out well for Labour there, seeing as Andy Burnham is the mayor. Before the anti-Burnham comments start, remember he scored way above par in the Mayoral election there. At the very least the pro-Tory effect there will be alot more muted compared to other parts I'd guess.
It's a tough call, really.
I worked in and around London back in July 2005 and the prevailing emotion from recollection was anger. People wanted action.
In the immediate aftermath, the polls moved to the government.
Kim Jong May is a bit lucky that the suicide bomber is a Brit. If he had been a recent immigrant the right wing press would be asking all sorts of questions about her time as Home Secretary.
If the Lib Dems wanted to back Labour then Corbyn would be the only game in town. There simply wouldn't be time for Labour to select someone else and Corbyn at least would surely refuse to resign anyway if he'd just gained seats, as he would have done in that situation.
I'd be astonished if the SNP facilitated a Labour government. They're not daft enough to think that it would be anything other than a car crash - Labour simply don't have the people to get it right with the policies that they've settled upon. I don't think anyone could make a go of their policies. I think the SNP therefore might allow a minority Tory government, but wreck it in every way as it tried to govern, but where possible they'd block a Labour government from existing.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
Same as every time an attack happens and there was a level of 'being known' - do the public think its impossible to keep an eye on everyone of interest, yes, and will they accept without political consequences that it happened to happen here that one slipped through. Usually, yes.
I think the public have reached the stage of believing it's so widespread that it needs a different solution.
They can't use the whole Corbyn etc are terrorist sympathisers/supporters etc now because it would look like they are exploiting a tragedy.
They don't have to. People can join up the dots for themselves.
The live Question Time event could be very interesting as a member of the public is sure to bring up the terrorism connection and it'll be harder for Corbyn to bat away.
He'll have a prepared, coherent and focus group tested response ready I'd expect. The bigger problem would be if Diane Abbott is put on the spot about how she would manage the police and security services. If I was Labour HQ I'd put it about that she has the flu and is unavailable for the next few days.
If the Lib Dems wanted to back Labour then Corbyn would be the only game in town. There simply wouldn't be time for Labour to select someone else and Corbyn at least would surely refuse to resign anyway if he'd just gained seats, as he would have done in that situation.
I'd be astonished if the SNP facilitated a Labour government. They're not daft enough to think that it would be anything other than a car crash - Labour simply don't have the people to get it right with the policies that they've settled upon. I don't think anyone could make a go of their policies. I think the SNP therefore might allow a minority Tory government, but wreck it in every way as it tried to govern, but where possible they'd block a Labour government from existing.
I wonder what Woodcock would do. Probably back Corbyn if push came to shove. Which is what makes his stance on him utterly ridiculous.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I agree, I just wonder if she might take some flak.
What would anger ME is if it was proved he'd been to Syria (the French are saying he did) and fought for ISIS, and then came back, and the police knew this. And did nothing.
Anyone who has been to Syria and fought for ISIS should be arrested, remanded in custody, and put on trial. Simple as. Get them off the streets.
If she was up against somebody who was perceived as tough on terror, yes, but instead she is up about Walter the softie and a terrorist sympathizer. Nigel Farage isn't in the picture.
What is Walter and Jahadi Jez's proposals to this...in Jezzas case it is more unlimited immigration, no shoot to kill, lets invite ISIS for a cuppa.
George Osborne must have mixed emotions after Theresa May's poor performance in the Andrew Neil interview. He must feel that he would have been a much more competent PM. However he must hold vestigial Tory views despite the publishing of the 'Strong and Stable My Arse' posters last night.
Who knows what will happen in the election, it is unlikely that there will be any change in the direction of travel for the polls? After all the atrocity happened on Theresa May's watch and the police are complaining about the loss of manpower. No wonder the Army has had to be called in.
Until this week I was unaware that May can't answer a straight question and that she is easily flustered. A good job that the Brexit negotiations will be handled by Davies or Starmer not May or Corbyn.
He must feel that he would have been a much more competent PM. However he must hold vestigial Tory views despite the publishing of the 'Strong and Stable My Arse' posters last night. .
He might - however anyone who remembers the pasty tax and the EU referendum will remember just 2 of his many failures.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
Corbyn came in to 11.5 for PM after the election, which I've taken a view against. Think he's drifted out to ~ 13 since.
It's surprising how similar the o In which case I would have thought May would continue as PM, at least in the short-run, as long as she has say 300 seats (assuming LDs at least 12).
The Lib Dems couldn't demand a new leader. It'd be like in 2010 was when Brown resigned: that was the moment I knew that Cameron was about to become PM.
If the Lib Dems wanted to back Labour then Corbyn would be the only game in town. There simply wouldn't be time for Labour to select someone else and Corbyn at least would surely refuse to resign anyway if he'd just gained seats, as he would have done in that situation.
The Prime Minister just has to have the confidence of Parliament. They don't have to be party leader at that point do they ?
If 326 MPs of all shades thought Kier Starmer could form a government, how would the Labour leadership elections process play into that ?
Labour would collapse as a party if they tried that. Corbyn would still legally be Leader and hold the infrastructure, including the money, and expulsions would be inevitable. I don't think it's in the culture of Labour to even consider it though.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I agree, I just wonder if she might take some flak.
What would anger ME is if it was proved he'd been to Syria (the French are saying he did) and fought for ISIS, and then came back, and the police knew this. And did nothing.
Anyone who has been to Syria and fought for ISIS should be arrested, remanded in custody, and put on trial. Simple as. Get them off the streets.
**Angered ME rushes into the arms of Jeremy Corbyn**
Doesn't work for me on any level. May could post a video of herself constructing a bomb and personally handing it to a suicide bomber - ME would still not vote for Corbyn.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I agree, I just wonder if she might take some flak.
What would anger ME is if it was proved he'd been to Syria (the French are saying he did) and fought for ISIS, and then came back, and the police knew this. And did nothing.
Anyone who has been to Syria and fought for ISIS should be arrested, remanded in custody, and put on trial. Simple as. Get them off the streets.
Can British courts try people for something they did in another country ? Or would he just be extradited to whatever's left of the Syrian legal system ?
George Osborne must have mixed emotions after Theresa May's poor performance in the Andrew Neil interview. He must feel that he would have been a much more competent PM. However he must hold vestigial Tory views despite the publishing of the 'Strong and Stable My Arse' posters last night.
Who knows what will happen in the election, it is unlikely that there will be any change in the direction of travel for the polls? After all the atrocity happened on Theresa May's watch and the police are complaining about the loss of manpower. No wonder the Army has had to be called in.
Until this week I was unaware that May can't answer a straight question and that she is easily flustered. A good job that the Brexit negotiations will be handled by Davies or Starmer not May or Corbyn.
Thanks @roserees64 - always good to have opposing viewpoints to the mainstream think here, certainly for betting purposes. Have you met anyone who feels more inclined to vote Labour as a result of this tragedy ?
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
Abedi could hardly have been more obvious. If the security services can miss him, they can miss anyone and are a vast waste of money.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
and his parents had concerns and took away his passport and phoned the police. His imam also told of a time he reacted angrily when he gave a sermon about not killing innocent people and isil in in relation to Libya. This is different to the usual "he was quiet and kept to himself I never expected anything like this from him".
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
Corbyn came in to 11.5 for PM after the election, which I've taken a view against. Think he's drifted out to ~ 13 since.
It's surprising how similar the odds are for No Overall Majority and for Corbyn to be PM after the GE.
I would have thought there should be quite a significant difference - if Con get 313 seats then May must be 100% certain to remain PM (at least in the short-term) with DUP/UUP support.
Even a bit below 313 it's surely inconceivable that the LDs would agree to Corbyn becoming PM - they've said no to any coalition but even a supply / confidence deal would surely be dependent upon a new mainstream Labour leader.
In which case I would have thought May would continue as PM, at least in the short-run, as long as she has say 300 seats (assuming LDs at least 12).
The Lib Dems couldn't demand a new leader. It'd be like in 2010 was when Brown resigned: that was the moment I knew that Cameron was about to become PM.
If the Lib Dems wanted to back Labour then Corbyn would be the only game in town. There simply wouldn't be time for Labour to select someone else and Corbyn at least would surely refuse to resign anyway if he'd just gained seats, as he would have done in that situation.
It would be up to the MPs, anyone who could command a majority in the House would be PM.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
Abedi could hardly have been more obvious. If the security services can miss him, they can miss anyone and are a vast waste of money.
Think we should have had Kantar and Panelbase by now if they had followed the same pattern as previous weeks. And YouGov by tonight.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It woul
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
Corbyn came in to 11.5 for PM after the election, which I've taken a view against. Think he's drifted out to ~ 13 since.
It's surprising how similar the o In which case I would have thought May would continue as PM, at least in the short-run, as long as she has say 300 seats (assuming LDs at least 12).
If the Lib Dems wanted to back Labour then Corbyn would be the only game in town. There simply wouldn't be time for Labour to select someone else and Corbyn at least would surely refuse to resign anyway if he'd just gained seats, as he would have done in that situation.
The Prime Minister just has to have the confidence of Parliament. They don't have to be party leader at that point do they ?
If 326 MPs of all shades thought Kier Starmer could form a government, how would the Labour leadership elections process play into that ?
Labour would collapse as a party if they tried that. Corbyn would still legally be Leader and hold the infrastructure, including the money, and expulsions would be inevitable. I don't think it's in the culture of Labour to even consider it though.
Right but if Corbyn couldn't get the votes to get through a confidence motion, they could hardly say take him or leave him because we need another 2 months to run a leadership election. If putting someone else up was the only way of getting a Labour minority government surely they'd do the necessary rather than have the Tories back in in some form.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I agree, I just wonder if she might take some flak.
What would anger ME is if it was proved he'd been to Syria (the French are saying he did) and fought for ISIS, and then came back, and the police knew this. And did nothing.
Anyone who has been to Syria and fought for ISIS should be arrested, remanded in custody, and put on trial. Simple as. Get them off the streets.
Evidence, dear chap, evidence. Before it is possible to put someone on trial there must be evidence that can be produced in court that they have actually committed a crime.
"A Muslim community worker has told BBC News that members of the public called the police anti-terrorism hotline warning about the Manchester suicide bomber’s extreme and violent views several years ago.
The BBC also understands that Abedi was in Manchester earlier this year when he told people of the value of dying for a cause and made hardline statements about suicide operations and the conflict in Libya.
The community worker – who did not want to be identified – said two people who knew Salman Abedi at college made separate calls to the police.
They had been worried that “he was supporting terrorism” and had expressed the view that “being a suicide bomber was OK.” The friends had argued with him, telling him he was wrong but had become so concerned they contacted the police."
A few days back we had an unusual leaflet through the door (at least I cannot remember receiving a similar one). It's from our newly-elected Conservative district and county councillors, thanking us for electing them.
It does not mention the general election at all, but is clearly a Conservative leaflet. I wondered if this could be a slightly sneaky way of overcoming election expenses as it is clearly a Conservative leaflet.
It would be odd to want to cheat here in South Cambs, as there's f'all chance of anyone but Heidi Allen from winning.
Are leaflets like this unusual, or do I need to take off my tinfoil hat?
When I was a Lib Dem activist in Hants in the '90s, "thank you" leaflets were absolutely de rigeur.
Ah, thanks.
And delivered during a GE it would be declarable for expenses, anyway.
That's the view I have taken although it could be argued that if the parliamentary canidate is not mentioned it doesn't matter. Also difficult to report half a story. I have taken the view that a joint thank you after June 8th is more practical.
Presumably pollsters either stopped polling because of Manchester, or if not they feel it is inappropriate to release a poll at the moment.
There's probably a poll or two that either gets pulped or delayed, watch for fieldwork dates when we start to see them appear.
It would be interesting, not least for historians and social scientists, if somone who did a pre-atrocity poll resampled the same voters now. We genuinely don't know what the impact is (or should be), both of the bomb and the appropriately high profile of the PM since, and if pre-bomb polls are suppressed then we'll never know.
Indeed - A lot of assumptions will be made depending on the final result, but although someone questioned this yesterday, I do think the true effect is mostly indiscernible.
The effect on the betting markets has indeed been virtually indiscernible, if that is anything to go on.
Corbyn came in to 11.5 for PM after the election, which I've taken a view against. Think he's drifted out to ~ 13 since.
It's surprising how similar the o In which case I would have thought May would continue as PM, at least in the short-run, as long as she has say 300 seats (assuming LDs at least 12).
The Lib Dems couldn't demand a new leader. It'd be like in 2010 was when Brown resigned: that was the moment I knew that Cameron was about to become PM.
If the Lib Dems wanted to back Labour then Corbyn would be the only game in town. There simply wouldn't be time for Labour to select someone else and Corbyn at least would surely refuse to resign anyway if he'd just gained seats, as he would have done in that situation.
The Prime Minister just has to have the confidence of Parliament. They don't have to be party leader at that point do they ?
If 326 MPs of all shades thought Kier Starmer could form a government, how would the Labour leadership elections process play into that ?
Labour would collapse as a party if they tried that. Corbyn would still legally be Leader and hold the infrastructure, including the money, and expulsions would be inevitable. I don't think it's in the culture of Labour to even consider it though.
My guess is that Len McCluskey would be the most powerful man in Britain in that scenario *shudder*
I can't see any scenario where the Lib Dems wouldn't vote against any vote of confidence which could make Jeremy Corbyn PM.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
Abedi could hardly have been more obvious. If the security services can miss him, they can miss anyone and are a vast waste of money.
Given his background, his views, his known trips to Syria and Libya and two separate people reporting him as suspicious, you do wonder what you have to do before MI5 start following you around?
If the Lib Dems wanted to back Labour then Corbyn would be the only game in town. There simply wouldn't be time for Labour to select someone else and Corbyn at least would surely refuse to resign anyway if he'd just gained seats, as he would have done in that situation.
I'd be astonished if the SNP facilitated a Labour government. They're not daft enough to think that it would be anything other than a car crash - Labour simply don't have the people to get it right with the policies that they've settled upon. I don't think anyone could make a go of their policies. I think the SNP therefore might allow a minority Tory government, but wreck it in every way as it tried to govern, but where possible they'd block a Labour government from existing.
I wonder what Woodcock would do. Probably back Corbyn if push came to shove. Which is what makes his stance on him utterly ridiculous.
Don't know anything about Woodcock - Barrow & Furness Woodcock? I don't think it would be wise for any small party or independent faction to support a Labour coalition though. Labour's own MPs have doubts, so how on earth could you defend supporting the idea of them governing.
Who knows what will happen in the election, it is unlikely that there will be any change in the direction of travel for the polls? After all the atrocity happened on Theresa May's watch and the police are complaining about the loss of manpower. No wonder the Army has had to be called in.
.
If Labour were led by Attlee or Callaghan, there might well be something in that argument. But, under Corbyn? No.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I agree, I just wonder if she might take some flak.
What would anger ME is if it was proved he'd been to Syria (the French are saying he did) and fought for ISIS, and then came back, and the police knew this. And did nothing.
Anyone who has been to Syria and fought for ISIS should be arrested, remanded in custody, and put on trial. Simple as. Get them off the streets.
**Angered ME rushes into the arms of Jeremy Corbyn**
Doesn't work for me on any level. May could post a video of herself constructing a bomb and personally handing it to a suicide bomber - ME would still not vote for Corbyn.
I've clearly gotten over my momentary lunacy of considering a vote for Corbyn; I got over that before Manchester.
My point is more prosaic. Are we really letting known ISIS fighters return to Britain, and allowing them to wander the streets? If we are, that's insane, and must stop. If we can't arrest them under British law, make a new fucking law. You fight for ISIS, you go to prison.
I agree, Sean. But we don't live in a rational world, do we? If we did, the atrocities that were perpetrated in Rotherham and Rochdale could never have happened. Right in front of the noses of the authorities. Moral cowardice followed by organised appeasement.
A few days back we had an unusual leaflet through the door (at least I cannot remember receiving a similar one). It's from our newly-elected Conservative district and county councillors, thanking us for electing them.
It does not mention the general election at all, but is clearly a Conservative leaflet. I wondered if this could be a slightly sneaky way of overcoming election expenses as it is clearly a Conservative leaflet.
It would be odd to want to cheat here in South Cambs, as there's f'all chance of anyone but Heidi Allen from winning.
Are leaflets like this unusual, or do I need to take off my tinfoil hat?
When I was a Lib Dem activist in Hants in the '90s, "thank you" leaflets were absolutely de rigeur.
Ah, thanks.
And delivered during a GE it would be declarable for expenses, anyway.
That's the view I have taken although it could be argued that if the parliamentary canidate is not mentioned it doesn't matter. Also difficult to report half a story. I have taken the view that a joint thank you after June 8th is more practical.
The leaflet is promoting a political party so is clearly declarable somehow. I guess you could try the Tory trick and argue that, because it only promoted the party generally and didn't mention the candidate, it is part of the national campaign (an argument that always struck me as dodgy since the material is clearly arriving locally). But for a leaflet delivered in one constituency only I don't know whether you could get away with that? Almost certainly not, given that generic stuff like "vote conservative" banners and posters are declarable locally whether they name the candidate or not.
The latest news from the BBC could indicate that the Manchester bomber was known to the Home Office (Theresa May) five years ago and that his family had raised concerns about him. Why on earth was this lead not followed up? Lots of questions to answer by May.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I agree, I just wonder if she might take some flak.
What would anger ME is if it was proved he'd been to Syria (the French are saying he did) and fought for ISIS, and then came back, and the police knew this. And did nothing.
Anyone who has been to Syria and fought for ISIS should be arrested, remanded in custody, and put on trial. Simple as. Get them off the streets.
Evidence, dear chap, evidence. Before it is possible to put someone on trial there must be evidence that can be produced in court that they have actually committed a crime.
That's why I say "if it was PROVED" in my comment. Tsk.
Well he's going to come under a lot more scrutiny now than he would have beforehand so something might be proved now that was not proved beforehand.
They can't use the whole Corbyn etc are terrorist sympathisers/supporters etc now because it would look like they are exploiting a tragedy.
That's what I said last night.
I guess the thing is the press can do the job for them.
Plus it's undoubtedly helped them changing the focus to national security and away from social care.
I don't think it's been mentioned but I think May's really lucky break was that Manchester didn't happen 24 hours earlier. The point being that she just got in her social care U-turn in time and closed down the issue - the general perception now being it has been sorted.
If Manchester had happened 24 hours earlier she would have had to come back to social care when the campaign restarted - and the closing down of the issue wouldn't have been so tidy - it would have dragged on much more - causing more political damage.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
Abedi could hardly have been more obvious. If the security services can miss him, they can miss anyone and are a vast waste of money.
Given his background, his views, his known trips to Syria and Libya and two separate people reporting him as suspicious, you do wonder what you have to do before MI5 start following you around?
The more worrying implication is that there's a lot more people which MI5 etc were more worried about than him.
"A Muslim community worker has told BBC News that members of the public called the police anti-terrorism hotline warning about the Manchester suicide bomber’s extreme and violent views several years ago.
The BBC also understands that Abedi was in Manchester earlier this year when he told people of the value of dying for a cause and made hardline statements about suicide operations and the conflict in Libya.
The community worker – who did not want to be identified – said two people who knew Salman Abedi at college made separate calls to the police.
They had been worried that “he was supporting terrorism” and had expressed the view that “being a suicide bomber was OK.” The friends had argued with him, telling him he was wrong but had become so concerned they contacted the police."
BBC News.
This begins to sound like a major fuck-up by the cops/MI5.
How many get reported each year - if 10 then yes. If 1000+ then ?
In a spirit of gentle leg-pulling, I have to call that a "Norfolk" poll. (As in "Norfolk in chance")
Well if I'm right you'll all go wow, and if I'm wrong it'll be quickly forgotten. Those numbers aren't what I actually expect. I do though think they are possible both in a poll and in the GE. These are interesting times.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
Abedi could hardly have been more obvious. If the security services can miss him, they can miss anyone and are a vast waste of money.
Given his background, his views, his known trips to Syria and Libya and two separate people reporting him as suspicious, you do wonder what you have to do before MI5 start following you around?
Strap a bomb to your person, start shouting "allahu akbar" and point an Ak-47 at a police officer. Then you *might* get arrested.
This is interesting. Is this the first time the BBC has admitted that there are "two main parties"?
Good spot, sir!
Mind you, if things work out according to the more optimistic Conservative supporters the landslide will be so big that the "two main parties" will be "Conservatives" and "Conservatives Reserves". *
* With acknowledgements to the late, great Bill Shankley.
If the scale of miliant/fundamental islam in the UK is being seen to be increasing and growing in people's perception, then I can't see that as being good for the Left somehow.
Getting narked with the level of BBC reporting this afternoon. They are going big with reports from one source (who self-identifies as a Muslim community worker) that the bomber was brought to the attention of the authorities 5 years ago and that no action was taken.
Now some or all of that may be true - but at present it is one source without corroboration. We have no way of knowing what action was taken if such a report was made - it certainly wouldn't have been reported back to the complainant.
Yes, we all want answers - but surely the BBC should know better than to use one uncorroborated source as the basis for their lead story.
Sensitive and cautious should be the way forward - not scare-mongering or playing the blame game.
But May will get her share of news coverage in Sicily anyway.
TV news is also much more limited over weekend + Mon is a Bank Holiday (+ lots of people will be away) so in reality most people aren't going to be exposed to any significant GE campaigning until next Tuesday.
If the scale of miliant/fundamental islam in the UK is being seen to be increasing and growing in people's perception, then I can't see that as being good for the Left somehow.
That's very true. It's one of the main reasons why the public still blames Blair's goverment for mass immigration. The Tories - including May herself - have gotten away with murder regarding that issue.
Security, immigration, terrorism, etc, they are all perceived to be Labour weaknesses.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
and his parents had concerns and took away his passport and phoned the police. His imam also told of a time he reacted angrily when he gave a sermon about not killing innocent people and isil in in relation to Libya. This is different to the usual "he was quiet and kept to himself I never expected anything like this from him".
Is this a massive security blunder?
He also flew a black ISIS-like flag from his house. No kidding.
According to the paper it was only a "clue" Other clues pointing to radicalisation include the appearance of a black flag associated with Islamist groups on Abedi’s house in Elsmore road
I didn't realise the G7 was in Italy this weekend. I guess when May called the GE this would be a chance near the time of reckoning to show her looking Prime Ministerial on the international stage.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I dunno, we're armchair critics, but if he was reported twice to the police by independent Muslim sources AND flew an ISIS flag AND had his passport confiscated by his parents AND argued with the preacher about ISIS AND spoke up for suicide bombing to his friends AND marched down the street shouting passages from the Koran AND recently visited Libya, it seems there's a prima facie case that they should have taken a closer look. I'm all for freedom of opinion and any one of these things might be shrugged off, but all of them together? Aren't the security services supposed to be really good at using computing power to link different bits of information?
Among other things, what's the good of our demanding that Muslims report extremists to the fuzz if the fuzz then (apparently) say yeah, whatever and do nothing about it?
And no, this isn't a political point. I accept that the decision won't have been made by a politician of any kind. But it would be appropriate for politicians to call for a review of whether these reports are correct and why nothing was done, so that we can learn from experience.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I dunno, we're armchair critics, but if he was reported twice to the police by independent Muslim sources AND flew an ISIS flag AND had his passport confiscated by his parents AND argued with the preacher about ISIS AND spoke up for suicide bombing to his friends AND marched down the street shouting passages fromn the Koran AND recently visited Libya, it seems there's a prima facie case that they should have taken a closer look. I'm all for freedom of opinion and any one of these things might be shrugged off, but all of them together? Aren't the security services supposed to be really good at using computing power to link different bits of information?
Among other things, what's the good of our demanding that Muslims report extremists to the fuzz if the fuzz then (apparently) say yeah, whatever and do nothing about it?
And no, this isn't a political point. I accept that the decision won't have been made by a politician of any kind. But it would be appropriate for politicians to call for a review of whether these reports are correct and why nothing was done, so that we can learn from experience.
Either so many people are reporting stuff to the 789123 phone line that MI5 is overwhelmed, or it would appear to be a waste of time.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I dunno, we're armchair critics, but if he was reported twice to the police by independent Muslim sources AND flew an ISIS flag AND had his passport confiscated by his parents AND argued with the preacher about ISIS AND spoke up for suicide bombing to his friends AND marched down the street shouting passages from the Koran AND recently visited Libya, it seems there's a prima facie case that they should have taken a closer look. I'm all for freedom of opinion and any one of these things might be shrugged off, but all of them together? Aren't the security services supposed to be really good at using computing power to link different bits of information?
Among other things, what's the good of our demanding that Muslims report extremists to the fuzz if the fuzz then (apparently) say yeah, whatever and do nothing about it?
And no, this isn't a political point. I accept that the decision won't have been made by a politician of any kind. But it would be appropriate for politicians to call for a review of whether these reports are correct and why nothing was done, so that we can learn from experience.
It's a major weakness of a mostly unarmed police force: we have only a few thousand armed specialists nationally, so those get used up pretty quickly in a situation like this.
True, but if all police were armed they'd almost certainly kill more innocent people every year by mistake than terrorists currently set out to do on purpose.
I have always suspected that the word 'homicide' exists - or at least came into wide use - because it's neutral as to the intent and criminality behind a killing, and in America, so many homicides are done by the police.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I dunno, we're armchair critics, but if he was reported twice to the police by independent Muslim sources AND flew an ISIS flag AND had his passport confiscated by his parents AND argued with the preacher about ISIS AND spoke up for suicide bombing to his friends AND marched down the street shouting passages from the Koran AND recently visited Libya, it seems there's a prima facie case that they should have taken a closer look. I'm all for freedom of opinion and any one of these things might be shrugged off, but all of them together? Aren't the security services supposed to be really good at using computing power to link different bits of information?
Among other things, what's the good of our demanding that Muslims report extremists to the fuzz if the fuzz then (apparently) say yeah, whatever and do nothing about it?
And no, this isn't a political point. I accept that the decision won't have been made by a politician of any kind. But it would be appropriate for politicians to call for a review of whether these reports are correct and why nothing was done, so that we can learn from experience.
I fear the answer to that question is that if we did that, we would be looking at huge numbers and a sig proportion of the muslim community would have to be investigated, even if it's only 5-10% say, then thats a lot.
(and I could be utterly wrong here, but we just don't know).
If the scale of miliant/fundamental islam in the UK is being seen to be increasing and growing in people's perception, then I can't see that as being good for the Left somehow.
That's very true. It's one of the main reasons why the public still blames Blair's goverment for mass immigration. The Tories - including May herself - have gotten away with murder regarding that issue.
Security, immigration, terrorism, etc, they are all perceived to be Labour weaknesses.
Likewise France, Holland, America, Australia. Which just goes to show - there isn't any "answer" to this, no country has got it right. France bans the burqa - and gets bombed; America is the melting pot - and gets bombed; Sweden is massively welcoming - and gets bombed.
The problem is Islam.
I posted this on an earlier thread. Relevant in response to yours I think. In 2 parts because of length constraints.
"Spend time with today's Muslim schoolkids, as I have, and you'll find they are mostly very aware of the challenge their generation faces of reconciling the 'modern' western ideals they assimilate at school with the more 'traditional' values imported by their parents. As with other waves of immigrants our country has assimilated over the generations, the problem is not with the generality but with the particular socio-economic and geo-political reasons that allow radical islamism to appeal to a small minority of the disaffected."
An example of the muddle-headed thinking which so bedevils our efforts to prevent radicalisation. The parents of these youngsters, even the grandparents, are often British citizens born and brought up in this country so the questions to be asked are why it is that they are “importing” “traditional” values, what exactly what those values are and whether they are compatible with Western values.
When that credal culture is one a significant part of which seems both aggressive and brittle, when there have been for the last 40 years at least, particularly so in the last decade, winds of an aggressive intolerant fundamentalism blowing through it, when there has been a culture of multiculturalism which has refused to contemplate the possibility that not all cultures may be equally worthwhile and has impeded the sort of integration necessary, when the countries where that credal culture originated and is predominant have largely been economic, social and political failures, it is not entirely surprising that radical islamism appeals to some. But the reasons are not just socio-economic or geo-political. Culture and religion also matter. Just because they don’t matter to us doesn’t mean that they don’t matter – a great deal – to others.
A few days back we had an unusual leaflet through the door (at least I cannot remember receiving a similar one). It's from our newly-elected Conservative district and county councillors, thanking us for electing them.
It does not mention the general election at all, but is clearly a Conservative leaflet. I wondered if this could be a slightly sneaky way of overcoming election expenses as it is clearly a Conservative leaflet.
It would be odd to want to cheat here in South Cambs, as there's f'all chance of anyone but Heidi Allen from winning.
Are leaflets like this unusual, or do I need to take off my tinfoil hat?
When I was a Lib Dem activist in Hants in the '90s, "thank you" leaflets were absolutely de rigeur.
Ah, thanks.
And delivered during a GE it would be declarable for expenses, anyway.
That's the view I have taken although it could be argued that if the parliamentary canidate is not mentioned it doesn't matter. Also difficult to report half a story. I have taken the view that a joint thank you after June 8th is more practical.
The leaflet is promoting a political party so is clearly declarable somehow. I guess you could try the Tory trick and argue that, because it only promoted the party generally and didn't mention the candidate, it is part of the national campaign (an argument that always struck me as dodgy since the material is clearly arriving locally). But for a leaflet delivered in one constituency only I don't know whether you could get away with that? Almost certainly not, given that generic stuff like "vote conservative" banners and posters are declarable locally whether they name the candidate or not.
For what its worth we have taken your view in Westmorland and it looks as if the LDs have as well.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I dunno, we're armchair critics, but if he was reported twice to the police by independent Muslim sources AND flew an ISIS flag AND had his passport confiscated by his parents AND argued with the preacher about ISIS AND spoke up for suicide bombing to his friends AND marched down the street shouting passages from the Koran AND recently visited Libya, it seems there's a prima facie case that they should have taken a closer look. I'm all for freedom of opinion and any one of these things might be shrugged off, but all of them together? Aren't the security services supposed to be really good at using computing power to link different bits of information?
Among other things, what's the good of our demanding that Muslims report extremists to the fuzz if the fuzz then (apparently) say yeah, whatever and do nothing about it?
And no, this isn't a political point. I accept that the decision won't have been made by a politician of any kind. But it would be appropriate for politicians to call for a review of whether these reports are correct and why nothing was done, so that we can learn from experience.
NP he may have all sorts of negative indicators too - so perhaps he didn't post on some site or other, and he'd never visited some place, and he'd never eaten fish and chips without vinegar. You can't really put together all the binary flags that are against him without including all the binary flags that are with him. The only question really is was there a big red flag against his name - if there was and it wasn't followed up then that's bad. We can't though judge the process of raising those red flags with the incomplete information we have.
It must hugely pain decent Muslims that their religion is so often associated with violence. But, painful as it may be to hear this, there has not been a sufficient or a sufficiently strong firewall between peaceful non-aggressive Islam and the sort of Islam, apparently based on the Koran and the life of Mohammed and his early warriors (see the recent Tom Holland documentary on ISIS) which appears to animate the radicals. Some hard questions need to be asked by and of Muslims themselves about why this is so and what needs to be done to build a much more effective firewall. Saying that these terrorists don’t represent true Islam feels like saying what people would like to be true not what appears to be true, for some anyway. Something much more effective needs doing to strengthen the Muslim body against the virus which is harming it. And others, as we see all too often. Sadly.
If the scale of miliant/fundamental islam in the UK is being seen to be increasing and growing in people's perception, then I can't see that as being good for the Left somehow.
That's very true. It's one of the main reasons why the public still blames Blair's goverment for mass immigration. The Tories - including May herself - have gotten away with murder regarding that issue.
Security, immigration, terrorism, etc, they are all perceived to be Labour weaknesses.
The family came to the UK when the Tories were in power, and had been for many years.
I'd love for one of the Corbyn loving celebs who to put their hand in their pocket and send a cheque to HMRC every month for the increase in taxes they think should be paid to improve society. Rather than being a part of the tax dodge by setting up a company etc, demonstrate all taxes are paid, and then even more mailed to the tax office. That would be something I could get behind.
Personally I think the tax and honours systems should be combined so that you automatically get a gong if you have paid £1 million, £5 million, £10 million etc in income tax and NI. At some point you would automatically sit in the Lords, reformed into the House of Taxpayers. In effect the top 300 or so income tax payers in the land would form the upper house. These people would then scrutinise legislation for value for money, on account of it's mostly going to be their money.
The only person I have ever heard express gratitude to the higher rate taxpayers who basically fund everything is John McDonnell, bizarrely.
It would also silence rich tax-dodging hypocrites for good. If Jimmy Carr started to bang on about rich people dodging tax, he could be asked why he hasn't raised the matter in the HoTP. What's that Jimmy? You've not paid enough income tax to qualify for entry?
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
Abedi could hardly have been more obvious. If the security services can miss him, they can miss anyone and are a vast waste of money.
Given his background, his views, his known trips to Syria and Libya and two separate people reporting him as suspicious, you do wonder what you have to do before MI5 start following you around?
The more worrying implication is that there's a lot more people which MI5 etc were more worried about than him.
This. What if he was person-of-concern number 2,337 on a list of 7,800?
If the scale of miliant/fundamental islam in the UK is being seen to be increasing and growing in people's perception, then I can't see that as being good for the Left somehow.
That's very true. It's one of the main reasons why the public still blames Blair's goverment for mass immigration. The Tories - including May herself - have gotten away with murder regarding that issue.
Security, immigration, terrorism, etc, they are all perceived to be Labour weaknesses.
Funny how roles reverse when it comes to social issues
That hasn't been reversed, I haven't seen May or anyone else in the Tories propose 90 day detention without trial. Blair wanted to take shortcuts and easy options, why bother with surveillance and evidence if you can just bang someone up without either? The Tories didn't agree with that then and it isn't a policy still today.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I dunno, we're armchair critics, but if he was reported twice to the police by independent Muslim sources AND flew an ISIS flag AND had his passport confiscated by his parents AND argued with the preacher about ISIS AND spoke up for suicide bombing to his friends AND marched down the street shouting passages from the Koran AND recently visited Libya, it seems there's a prima facie case that they should have taken a closer look. I'm all for freedom of opinion and any one of these things might be shrugged off, but all of them together? Aren't the security services supposed to be really good at using computing power to link different bits of information?
Among other things, what's the good of our demanding that Muslims report extremists to the fuzz if the fuzz then (apparently) say yeah, whatever and do nothing about it?
And no, this isn't a political point. I accept that the decision won't have been made by a politician of any kind. But it would be appropriate for politicians to call for a review of whether these reports are correct and why nothing was done, so that we can learn from experience.
NP he may have all sorts of negative indicators too - so perhaps he didn't post on some site or other, and he'd never visited some place, and he'd never eaten fish and chips without vinegar. You can't really put together all the binary flags that are against him without including all the binary flags that are with him. The only question really is was there a big red flag against his name - if there was and it wasn't followed up then that's bad. We can't though judge the process of raising those red flags with the incomplete information we have.
The media asking such questions is going to be a big part of the news in coming days
I dunno, we're armchair critics, but if he was reported twice to the police by independent Muslim sources AND flew an ISIS flag AND had his passport confiscated by his parents AND argued with the preacher about ISIS AND spoke up for suicide bombing to his friends AND marched down the street shouting passages from the Koran AND recently visited Libya, it seems there's a prima facie case that they should have taken a closer look.
Seems highly likely they did, given the above. But then say they follow the guy around, put everything he does on the internet through a fine-toothed comb, listen to his phonecalls, examine all his friends and contacts ....... and find nothing prosecutable. What then?
Short of having an East German sized security apparatus, there's no way to permanently surveil every loud-mouthed nutter out there.
The latest news from the BBC could indicate that the Manchester bomber was known to the Home Office (Theresa May) five years ago and that his family had raised concerns about him. Why on earth was this lead not followed up? Lots of questions to answer by May.
We don't know what was and wasn't followed up. With finite resources the security services have to prioritise based on their assessment of the threat at the time. In this case, they got that assessment wrong. That, or they were monitoring him and somehow missed it all!
I'd love for one of the Corbyn loving celebs who to put their hand in their pocket and send a cheque to HMRC every month for the increase in taxes they think should be paid to improve society. Rather than being a part of the tax dodge by setting up a company etc, demonstrate all taxes are paid, and then even more mailed to the tax office. That would be something I could get behind.
Personally I think the tax and honours systems should be combined so that you automatically get a gong if you have paid £1 million, £5 million, £10 million etc in income tax and NI. At some point you would automatically sit in the Lords, reformed into the House of Taxpayers. In effect the top 300 or so income tax payers in the land would form the upper house. These people would then scrutinise legislation for value for money, on account of it's mostly going to be their money.
The only person I have ever heard express gratitude to the higher rate taxpayers who basically fund everything is John McDonnell, bizarrely.
It would also silence rich tax-dodging hypocrites for good. If Jimmy Carr started to bang on about rich people dodging tax, he could be asked why he hasn't raised the matter in the HoTP. What's that Jimmy? You've not paid enough income tax to qualify for entry?
I really like this idea. Kudos.
Good evening, everyone.
Evening!
Yes I did too at first brush then thought about it a bit. It'd mean that anyone could buy their way to a seat in the Lords.
Alice_Aforethought though is certainly to be congratulated on her (I presume) post.
THIS, however, could be bad for TMay. She was Home Secretary at the time. Though I suppose the argument is that it's more of a cock-up by MI5 or the cops. Hm.
That kind of thing drives me nuts. How on earth are they supposed to follow every single little whisper? Unless somebody can prove TM was handed the guy's name and address with a picture of him making a bomb, and she then forgot to tell somebody, I'd take it with a massive pinch of salt.
I dunno, we're armchair critics, but if he was reported twice to the police by independent Muslim sources AND flew an ISIS flag AND had his passport confiscated by his parents AND argued with the preacher about ISIS AND spoke up for suicide bombing to his friends AND marched down the street shouting passages from the Koran AND recently visited Libya, it seems there's a prima facie case that they should have taken a closer look. I'm all for freedom of opinion and any one of these things might be shrugged off, but all of them together? Aren't the security services supposed to be really good at using computing power to link different bits of information?
Among other things, what's the good of our demanding that Muslims report extremists to the fuzz if the fuzz then (apparently) say yeah, whatever and do nothing about it?
And no, this isn't a political point. I accept that the decision won't have been made by a politician of any kind. But it would be appropriate for politicians to call for a review of whether these reports are correct and why nothing was done, so that we can learn from experience.
How on earth do you separate the wheat from the chaff ? When someone rings up to say the guy down the road is a complete nutter how do you know who is the nutter ? There have been some fantastical reports from Crimewatch which have emerged into the public. I think the order was someting like 5 in 1000 who ring up have something even worth listening to. The Security Services have my complete sympathy - in the real world, unlike James Bond just shooting people rarely solves any problems.
Comments
At the very least the pro-Tory effect there will be alot more muted compared to other parts I'd guess.
If the Lib Dems wanted to back Labour then Corbyn would be the only game in town. There simply wouldn't be time for Labour to select someone else and Corbyn at least would surely refuse to resign anyway if he'd just gained seats, as he would have done in that situation.
It reads 'Juuuuust in case anyone was still voting conservative, imagine last nights heartbreaking tragedy happening with a privatised NHS. That's all.'
First unfriending of the GE.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/17/article-0-17A2586C000005DC-595_634x414.jpg
Oh, bugger....
The Tory campaign should simply focus on which leader and which team have the experience and ability to lead the country through the difficult demands of the next few years.
For what reason will this ever stop?
Theresa May says such attacks "will not break us", but her own life is lived in a bullet-proof bubble, and she evidently does not need to identify any young people today in Manchester morgues. Also, "will not break us" means that the tragedy will not break her, or her policies on immigration. The young people of Manchester are already broken - thanks all the same, Theresa. Sadiq Khan says "London is united with Manchester", but he does not condemn Islamic State - who have claimed responsibility for the bomb. The Queen receives absurd praise for her 'strong words' against the attack, yet she does not cancel today's garden party at Buckingham Palace - for which no criticism is allowed in the Britain of free press. Manchester mayor Andy Burnham says the attack is the work of an "extremist". An extreme what? An extreme rabbit?
In modern Britain everyone seems petrified to officially say what we all say in private. Politicians tell us they are unafraid, but they are never the victims. How easy to be unafraid when one is protected from the line of fire. The people have no such protections.
Morrissey
23 May 2017.
I imagine he'll then have to interview Nuttall, Farron and Sturgeon next week - probably Mon, Tue and Thur so as not to be on the same evening as the BBC debate (Wed) or BBC QT (Fri).
Unfortunately he is behaving like a bit of a twat.
Labour -31
Lib Dem -9
ukip- 4
If 326 MPs of all shades thought Kier Starmer could form a government, how would the Labour leadership elections process play into that ?
I worked in and around London back in July 2005 and the prevailing emotion from recollection was anger. People wanted action.
In the immediate aftermath, the polls moved to the government.
What is Walter and Jahadi Jez's proposals to this...in Jezzas case it is more unlimited immigration, no shoot to kill, lets invite ISIS for a cuppa.
Labour 24
LD 8
UKIP 7
Who knows what will happen in the election, it is unlikely that there will be any change in the direction of travel for the polls? After all the atrocity happened on Theresa May's watch and the police are complaining about the loss of manpower. No wonder the Army has had to be called in.
Until this week I was unaware that May can't answer a straight question and that she is easily flustered. A good job that the Brexit negotiations will be handled by Davies or Starmer not May or Corbyn.
Doesn't work for me on any level. May could post a video of herself constructing a bomb and personally handing it to a suicide bomber - ME would still not vote for Corbyn.
Is this a massive security blunder?
(Only joking. We'd all miss you.)
CDU/CSU 39
SPD 25
FDP 9
Linke 8
Green 7
AfD 7
Others 5
(As in "Norfolk in chance")
"A Muslim community worker has told BBC News that members of the public called the police anti-terrorism hotline warning about the Manchester suicide bomber’s extreme and violent views several years ago.
The BBC also understands that Abedi was in Manchester earlier this year when he told people of the value of dying for a cause and made hardline statements about suicide operations and the conflict in Libya.
The community worker – who did not want to be identified – said two people who knew Salman Abedi at college made separate calls to the police.
They had been worried that “he was supporting terrorism” and had expressed the view that “being a suicide bomber was OK.” The friends had argued with him, telling him he was wrong but had become so concerned they contacted the police."
BBC News.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/24/china-censored-googles-alphago-match-against-worlds-best-go-player
I can't see any scenario where the Lib Dems wouldn't vote against any vote of confidence which could make Jeremy Corbyn PM.
Though it's not beyond the realms of possibility for the election result in GB, the polls won't get Labour going that low.
It's got to stop.
Mind you, if things work out according to the more optimistic Conservative supporters the landslide will be so big that the "two main parties" will be "Conservatives" and "Conservatives Reserves". *
* With acknowledgements to the late, great Bill Shankley.
Now some or all of that may be true - but at present it is one source without corroboration. We have no way of knowing what action was taken if such a report was made - it certainly wouldn't have been reported back to the complainant.
Yes, we all want answers - but surely the BBC should know better than to use one uncorroborated source as the basis for their lead story.
Sensitive and cautious should be the way forward - not scare-mongering or playing the blame game.
TV news is also much more limited over weekend + Mon is a Bank Holiday (+ lots of people will be away) so in reality most people aren't going to be exposed to any significant GE campaigning until next Tuesday.
Security, immigration, terrorism, etc, they are all perceived to be Labour weaknesses.
Among other things, what's the good of our demanding that Muslims report extremists to the fuzz if the fuzz then (apparently) say yeah, whatever and do nothing about it?
And no, this isn't a political point. I accept that the decision won't have been made by a politician of any kind. But it would be appropriate for politicians to call for a review of whether these reports are correct and why nothing was done, so that we can learn from experience.
Moeen three sixes off the over, sun shining, oh to be in England in the sweet springtime.
I have always suspected that the word 'homicide' exists - or at least came into wide use -
because it's neutral as to the intent and criminality behind a killing, and in America, so many homicides are done by the police.
(and I could be utterly wrong here, but we just don't know).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4422086.stm
Funny how roles reverse when it comes to social issues
@IanB2 from 23/5 said this:-
"Spend time with today's Muslim schoolkids, as I have, and you'll find they are mostly very aware of the challenge their generation faces of reconciling the 'modern' western ideals they assimilate at school with the more 'traditional' values imported by their parents. As with other waves of immigrants our country has assimilated over the generations, the problem is not with the generality but with the particular socio-economic and geo-political reasons that allow radical islamism to appeal to a small minority of the disaffected."
An example of the muddle-headed thinking which so bedevils our efforts to prevent radicalisation. The parents of these youngsters, even the grandparents, are often British citizens born and brought up in this country so the questions to be asked are why it is that they are “importing” “traditional” values, what exactly what those values are and whether they are compatible with Western values.
The larger point is whether communities with a strong credal culture can happily co-exist in a secular society and democracy. See this - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/01/29/angels-and-fools-cyclefree-on-trumps-latest-executive-order/.
When that credal culture is one a significant part of which seems both aggressive and brittle, when there have been for the last 40 years at least, particularly so in the last decade, winds of an aggressive intolerant fundamentalism blowing through it, when there has been a culture of multiculturalism which has refused to contemplate the possibility that not all cultures may be equally worthwhile and has impeded the sort of integration necessary, when the countries where that credal culture originated and is predominant have largely been economic, social and political failures, it is not entirely surprising that radical islamism appeals to some. But the reasons are not just socio-economic or geo-political. Culture and religion also matter. Just because they don’t matter to us doesn’t mean that they don’t matter – a great deal – to others.
It must hugely pain decent Muslims that their religion is so often associated with violence. But, painful as it may be to hear this, there has not been a sufficient or a sufficiently strong firewall between peaceful non-aggressive Islam and the sort of Islam, apparently based on the Koran and the life of Mohammed and his early warriors (see the recent Tom Holland documentary on ISIS) which appears to animate the radicals. Some hard questions need to be asked by and of Muslims themselves about why this is so and what needs to be done to build a much more effective firewall. Saying that these terrorists don’t represent true Islam feels like saying what people would like to be true not what appears to be true, for some anyway. Something much more effective needs doing to strengthen the Muslim body against the virus which is harming it. And others, as we see all too often. Sadly.
Good evening, everyone.
Short of having an East German sized security apparatus, there's no way to permanently surveil every loud-mouthed nutter out there.
Yes I did too at first brush then thought about it a bit. It'd mean that anyone could buy their way to a seat in the Lords.
Alice_Aforethought though is certainly to be congratulated on her (I presume) post.