politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whilst it is understandable national campaigning has been susp

malcolmg said:

Black_Rook said:

malcolmg said:

Black_Rook said:

malcolmg said:

Black_Rook said:

FF43 said:

Black_Rook said:

calum said:

As the Scottish polls start to catch up with Corbynmania, I think SCON are now set to come 3rd behind SLAB in the National vote. With the UK polls closing this will present tactical voters with quite a number of dilemmas.

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/the-corbyn-effect-poll-shows-rise-in-scots-support-as-snp-warn-over-letting-in-tories-in-by-back-door/

Is there any reason to suppose that Scottish Labour is doing dramatically better than it was one or two weeks ago, other than one opinion poll?

Besides anything else, Panelbase have also, apparently, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.

The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.

We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:

1. Independence
2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely
3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour

More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get rid of Scotland as quickly as possible. I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and

LOL, Little Englander beats the drum. You halfwit you are hanging on like grim death because you are milking us. You sad F***s will soon be left on your jack jones with only yourselves to turn on.

Go fuck yourself you pathetic little shit.

Go polish your jackboots saddo

No, you go and polish yours. Your attitude has always been apparent and it stinks. Nasty, cruel, malignant, pathetic, disgusting, fascistic, petty blood-and-soil nationalist. Sick, depraved fuck. Go fuck yourself.

Get out of the wrong side of bed saddo and then mummy would not let you have coco pops, poor diddums

RoyalBlue said:

kle4 said:

MarkSenior said:

A new poll for you all Norstat

Con 39
Lab 35
LD 8
UKIP 6

If that one and its trend is right, Corbyn could end up most votes on Thursday, as the Tories have little time to Change the narrative of doing badly.

Pull yourself together! Most people have already decided how to vote. Even those figures when Baxtered show the Tory majority increasing, without accounting for gains in Scotland.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Alanbrooke said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Alanbrooke said:

Anyway

nows Jezzas big chance, TNT discovered in Dublin linked to PIRA and Sinn Fein

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/six-kilos-of-tnt-discovered-in-dublin-could-have-made-30-bombs-35786074.html

If you read the story, it seems to be feuding criminal gangs rather than terrorists.

are you daft ?

the paramilitaries run the crims and always have done, where do you think the money comes from to run a military campaign ?

Yes there is clear overlap but in this case the story is clear that it is crime that is the important factor, not the IRA from a decade ago and not even so-called dissident republicans now. Reading between the lines, the police initially thought it was semtex which has a clear IRA link but have now found it is TNT.

oxfordsimon said:

rottenborough said:

jonny83 said:

williamglenn said:

This is a political speech, not a statement about the events last night.

Yep, statement on last night and now pitching a vision of what she wants to do. See the custodial sentences bit.

It was a speech by the Prime Minister, a job she still holds, even though not an MP. Seemed reasonable to me, although I have concerns about this talk of regulating the Internet and taking on Facebook and so on.

Disrupting communication networks is vital for counter-terrorism. We have to bring our laws and actions into line with the reality of how the internet is being abused.

IanB2 said:

JonWC said:

IanB2 said:

JonWC said:

es.

Your second part makes a lot of assumptions with rather less evidence; you may be right that there is a bias towards the right amongst the unengaged (although in the past at least many wwc would fall into that box and have leaned left), but there is no way of knowing whether it is big or small.

IanB2 said:

JonWC said:

A polling and betting post.. to distract me from the horrors.


My theory is these people are of the more insular and cynical kind, like to keep themselves to themselves, lean conservative, and are surely likely to be especially unimpressed by the views of Jezz, to respond to a poll. Basically we are just guessing.

In terms of the models, there are credible reasons for thinking Survation has Labour too high (too many young people) but also why ComRes and ICM have them too low (the young will beat 2015 turnout). So a midpoint between the two is the best guess.

The bottom line is that this election depends like never before on the turnout of the young. Lots of scope for anecdotal PB'er reports on Thursday of polling stations that feel like the school dinner queue....(to us oldies, anyway)

That isn't quite my point though.. I am saying that the CHANGES in opinion amongst unpolled groups are uncertain and perhaps not well correlated. To get evidence that the changes are different you would have to do doorstep stuff and ask whether people would ever be pollable by phone or online at the same time I suppose and then do the analysis. I bet nobody has done that.

kle4 said:

IanB2 said:

You don't sound like a Tory, kle? Why add to their majority?

1) I won't be since i live in a safe seat anyway
2) If we exclude political compass which seems to think I am closest to Plaid Cymru, I usually seem to come somewhere between Tory and LD
3) While the LD manifesto was more realistic than the Labour one and included costings, their campaign has been terrible, and I do not know they deserve my vote, and in any case they might be dead in a week, and some of their supporters antipathy for the coalition years puts me off, as a coalition supporter. I know the candidate, a good and hardworking man, so I really considered it and I have never voted Tory before. But
4) While the social care policy no doubt needs tweaking, I appreciated that the Tory manifesto was attempting something for now, not vague words about a national care service and not much else (and not even sure how it would be funded in the labour one, nor even done in their first term), and that with it and the triple lock drop and WFA, the Tories were brave enough to tell some of their core supporters that they cannot have their freebies, that social care is a problem that needs a solution now, even if it costs them. Their campaign has also been terrible, and May is not great, but they were willing to be honest about some challenges, not just pretend its simple and easy.
5) Corbyn is surging. I do not think he will win, I do not think Labour will win most seats or get most votes, I think the Tories will have a majority of 30-50, but the surge is real, and in a polarised election, when the LDs are not making any impact at all and I cannot help them anyway, I feel I need to acknowledge that the prospect of Corbyn winning, or even just doing well enough to continue on as Labour leader, which now seems likely, does concern me, in a way I was never concerned with Ed M or Gordon Brown winning. To be blunt, for the first time I feel compelled into the sort of negative 'least worst' choice that many have faced before. Rather than the easy way out - vote LD, and share no blame for what the next Tory government does.

I'll vote Tory on June 8th, but that doesn't make me a Tory, anymore than voting LD 3 times made me a LD. What I'd prefer is a socially liberal, economically conservative, strongly UK Union party. (Which also supports some form of PR for preference)

OchEye said:

ab195 said:

OchEye said:

chloe said:

AlsoIndigo said:

Not sure there is much room for Labour supporters to try and make hay out of cuts to the police, army and security services when

a) The security services have had the budget substantially increased by Conservative governments

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/david-cameron-to-boost-security-spending-after-paris-attacks
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450402098/UK-government-re-announces-19bn-cyber-security-spend
https://www.ft.com/content/27f63d10-de81-11e2-b990-00144feab7de

b) Their leadership is on record as wanting to abolish the Security Services completely, disarm the police and drastically cut back the Army.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325294/Disarm-police-scrap-MI5-Labour-new-security-storm-demands-backed-shadow-chancellor-John-McDonnell.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/798261/Labour-John-McDonnell-Corbyn-armed-forces-taxpayers-funding-general-election-2017
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11458816/General-Election-2015-How-each-party-compares-on-defence-policy.html

Forshame!

And the police responded superbly, with 8 minutes.

The police responded very quickly indeed. So was there intelligence available or were the services on "critical" or black? It costs a great deal of money for the police and special services to be kept at this fast response level. There is no way that this level of response would be available normally on a week end. Which leaves the questions that will be asked, were the services aware of the general possibility or did they allow the attack to take place. I, personally prefer the first option, but that then begs the question, if the general possibility was there, why wasn't the level retained or renewed to critical?

The armed police response really is just that quick in London.

Not maintained at that level without authorisation. Only one person in the UK has that, and she lives in 10 Downing Street.

IanB2 said:

kle4 said:

IanB2 said:

You don't sound like a Tory, kle? Why add to their majority?

1) I won't be since i live in a safe seat anyway
2) If we exclude political compass which seems to think I am closest to Plaid Cymru, I usually seem to come somewhere between Tory and LD
3) While the LD manifesto was more realistic than the Labour one and included costings, their campaign has been terrible, and I do not know they deserve my vote, and in any case they might be dead in a week, and some of their supporters antipathy for the coalition years puts me off, as a coalition supporter. I know the candidate, a good and hardworking man, so I really considered it and I have never voted Tory before. But
Their campaign has also been terrible, and May is not great, but they were willing to be honest about some challenges, not just pretend its simple and easy.
5) Corbyn is surging. I do not think he will win, I do not think Labour will win most seats or get most votes, I think the Tories will have a majority of 30-50, but the surge is real, and in a polarised election, when the LDs are not making any impact at all and I cannot help them anyway, I feel I need to acknowledge that the prospect of Corbyn winning, or even just doing well enough to continue on as Labour leader, which now seems likely, does concern me, in a way I was never concerned with Ed M or Gordon Brown winning. To be blunt, for the first time I feel compelled into the sort of negative 'least worst' choice that many have faced before. Rather than the easy way out - vote LD, and share no blame for what the next Tory government does.

I'll vote Tory on June 8th, but that doesn't make me a Tory, anymore than voting LD 3 times made me a LD. What I'd prefer is a socially liberal, economically conservative, strongly UK Union party. (Which also supports some form of PR for preference)

OK. As you say both campaigns have been poor, so it's a tough choice. Personally I feel the Tory reaction and U-turn on the pensioner stuff will simply make tackling the unfairness issue more difficult and less likely.

Tactical voting in a safe seat is at least a novel approach, for sure

Andrew said:

OchEye said:

The police responded very quickly indeed. So was there intelligence available or were the services on "critical" or black? It costs a great deal of money for the police and special services to be kept at this fast response level. There is no way that this level of response would be available normally on a week end.

That's the norm nowadays - in London there are permanently deployed armed police circling around in cars 24/7.

Richard_Tyndall said:

scoop said:

Alistair said:

oxfordsimon said:

The age of tolerance and hand-wringing has to come to an end. It doesn't make us any safer.

Virtue signalling, vigils and candles do not defeat hate

We cannot appease our way to peace

The Manchester bomber was reported 5 times by his local community to the security services.

What are you proposing?

I understood there was no record of any reports to the security services .

I understood the bomber was actually on the security services watch list as a result of reports from the local community.

Saltire said:

I don't know if this has been linked to already today and if so apologises if it has but Nate Silver has his take on the UK polling on 538.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-the-u-k-polls-skewed/

His final analysis is since there is a wide range then focus on the average of the polls and not any individual one but be prepared for a wide range of outcomes!
I do note that the average of the polls from yesterday added 4.6% to the lead of the Tories from the raw figures.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

midwinter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alistair said:

oxfordsimon said:

The age of tolerance and hand-wringing has to come to an end. It doesn't make us any safer.

Virtue signalling, vigils and candles do not defeat hate

We cannot appease our way to peace

The Manchester bomber was reported 5 times by his local community to the security services.

What are you proposing?

The Police have denied any contact was made

Yes. I saw that . Is there a link anywhere?

I recall it being reported in several media reports but do not have a link

NickPalmer said:

Quincel said:

PMTM has officially suspended her national campaign, but the reality is she's announcing a new counter-terrorism manifesto in all but name in this speech. Hinting at significant internet controls etc. Light on detail of course, but interesting decision to go beyond speaking about this specific attack.

Yes, I think she's pushing the boundary of what we can say today that isn't election-related. It's genuinely difficult, though because people will be looking to politicians to say how they'll try to reduce this threat, and if she just said it's all very bad and we're doing our best,she'd not really be doing her job.

I think that it would make sense for somone low-key like Marr to interview the party leaders on the specific question of "What would you do to address this?" without going into what's wrong with other parties etc. Peoplre would appreciate some guidance, it's obviously relevant to the election, but few want a snarly slanging match right now.

FrancisUrquhart said:

oxfordsimon said:

Richard Angell on the BBC now is not just a regular Londoner - he is the Director of Progress.

It's amazing how they manage to find all these random members of the public who just happen not to be.

IanB2 said:

The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least

Pulpstar said:

Saltire said:

I don't know if this has been linked to already today and if so apologises if it has but Nate Silver has his take on the UK polling on 538.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-the-u-k-polls-skewed/

His final analysis is since there is a wide range then focus on the average of the polls and not any individual one but be prepared for a wide range of outcomes!
I do note that the average of the polls from yesterday added 4.6% to the lead of the Tories from the raw figures.

Nate Silver's analysis - If you're a cautious gambler, no bet.

another_richard said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

FF43 said:

Black_Rook said:

calum said:

As the Scottish polls start to catch up with Corbynmania, I think SCON are now set to come 3rd behind SLAB in the National vote. With the UK polls closing this will present tactical voters with quite a number of dilemmas.

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/the-corbyn-effect-poll-shows-rise-in-scots-support-as-snp-warn-over-letting-in-tories-in-by-back-door/

Is there any reason to suppose that Scottish Labour is doing dramatically better than it was one or two weeks ago, other than one opinion poll?

Besides anything else, Panelbase have also, apparently, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.

The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.

We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:

1. Independence
2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely
3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour

More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get rid of Scotland as quickly as possible. I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and its replacement with something that's actually fair (which would inevitably take a great chunk of money off the Scots and give it to the Welsh.) If I'm right in my suspicion, which is that most Scots don't give a fuck about the UK and that the No campaign only won in 2014 because of bribery, then that should do the trick.

There's a problem with that, and there's a big clue in the name. We are the Conservative and Unionist Party.

What name ?

I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.

And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.

another_richard said:

IanB2 said:

another_richard said:

Sandpit said:

Black_Rook said:

FF43 said:

Black_Rook said:

Is there any reason to suppose that Scottish Labour is doing dramatically better than it was one or two weeks ago, other than one opinion poll?

Besides anything else, Panelbase have also, apparently, reported this morning (details further down thread) and still have the Tories 10pts ahead of Labour in second.

The subsamples of the UK polls show a small drift from the SNP to Labour for this election, which is backed up by this Scottish poll. There are more SNP to Labour switchers than SNP to Conservative. Having made their point at the last Westminster election, independence supporting ex Labour voters are more willing to consider returning to Labour for UK-wide reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they have given up on the SNP however.

We shall see what happens in the coming election; however, in the longer term I suspect that one of the following three scenarios will play out in Scotland:

1. Independence
2. The SNP fails to get independence, but most of the 45% stick with it (or the Greens at Holyrood, which largely amounts to the same thing) indefinitely
3. Scots genuinely fall out of love with the SNP - and traipse straight back to Labour

More hard-headed folk in the Conservative Party in England need to start thinking about how to get rid of Scotland as quickly as possible. I'd favour the axing of the Barnett Formula and its replacement with something that's actually fair (which would inevitably take a great chunk of money off the Scots and give it to the Welsh.) If I'm right in my suspicion, which is that most Scots don't give a fuck about the UK and that the No campaign only won in 2014 because of bribery, then that should do the trick.

There's a problem with that, and there's a big clue in the name. We are the Conservative and Unionist Party.

What name ?

I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.

And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.

It's the official full name of the party, even today. But you are right that this came about when they merged with the Liberal Unionists, who had split from the Liberals over Irish Home Rule. I believe I am right that Heseltine was one of the last people to stand as a Liberal Unionist.

Wasn't Heseltine a National Liberal ?

As was John Nott and David Renton (John Major's predecessor in Huntingdon).

Scott_P said:

@LordAshcroft: Jeremy Corbyn needs to get to Raqqa, Syria with a bunch of flowers and a box of chocolates to discuss the situation...

AlsoIndigo said:

IanB2 said:

The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least

Even if he got promoted onto the shortlist of 3-5,000 the security services only have the resources to watch a couple of hundred or so around the clock. It was suggested at the time of Lee Rigby they would need to be increased in size by atleast 20 fold to have a chance of watching all the people even just on the short list of known risks.

numbertwelve said:

Silvers analysis is essentially "I have no idea".

numbertwelve said:

Pulpstar said:

Saltire said:

I don't know if this has been linked to already today and if so apologises if it has but Nate Silver has his take on the UK polling on 538.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-the-u-k-polls-skewed/

His final analysis is since there is a wide range then focus on the average of the polls and not any individual one but be prepared for a wide range of outcomes!
I do note that the average of the polls from yesterday added 4.6% to the lead of the Tories from the raw figures.

Nate Silver's analysis - If you're a cautious gambler, no bet.

Silvers analysis is essentially "I have no idea".

Malmesbury said:

Has anyone called for this guy to be arrested?

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/04/hero-of-london-threw-bottles-and-chairs-at-terrorists-to-stop-them-stabbing-victims-6683054/

Throwing alcohol containers at (possible) muslims is surely a hate crime?

TravelJunkie said:

By cutting police numbers and giving them a 1% increase in 7 years because of this terrorist attack, the Tory majority will increase from 12 to 150.

What a result for the Tories. Cut services get more Tory MPs.

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlsoIndigo said:

IanB2 said:

The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least

Even if he got promoted onto the shortlist of 3-5,000 the security services only have the resources to watch a couple of hundred or so around the clock. It was suggested at the time of Lee Rigby they would need to be increased in size by atleast 20 fold to have a chance of watching all the people even just on the short list of known risks.

Clearly there are not the personnel to trail people round the clock. But that's partly a red herring because there is a lot of electronic surveillance that can be done more-or-less for free: phone use; internet use; spending; travel. Sure, it won't stop the lone wolf who snaps and grabs a kitchen knife but Abedi had been flagged up, travelled to Syria and Libya (where his family has interesting connections) and then built his own bomb. That should have been spotted imo.

another_richard said:

What name ?

I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.

And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Sky sources:first police officer on the scene (rugby player) took on all terrorists until he was forced to ground. Serious condition in hospital.

Incredibly brave.

Theuniondivvie said:

another_richard said:

What name ?

I've never seen the Conservative party described as the Conservative and Unionist party on any leaflets or ballot papers I've ever received.

And the Unionist part relates to Irish Unionism in any case.

They're calling themselves the Conservative and Unionist party on my partner's postal ballot paper. Since they haven't a scooby in our constituency, I assume that's the title on all the Scottish ballot papers.

Tbf it's not all that evident on their literature, it's mostly the Ruth Davidson party & the Ruth Davidson candidate.

https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/871254955721723904

TudorRose said:

I very much agree with thread header as well as recognising that - this morning - our thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the bereaved as well as the injured.

Having said that I do wonder about how counter-productive our 'collective' response is to these events. At least one radio station changed its programming this morning and there is obviously a lot of publicity for this one event; does this not embolden terrorists?

If we repeatedly demonstrate that we can be thrown out of our normal routine each time these horrific events happen then I suspect that will be an additional reason for them to happen (not to mention the potential for copy-cat activities). I note, for example, that on the night after the Manchester bombing five people were killed in a car crash on the M6. Both events were tragic, both needed investigating, but only one received ongoing publicity and a tribute concert. I wonder whether we would be better celebrating our wonderful democratic way life rather than tragic death. I apologise if this offends anyone, but I think we are in danger of giving the terrorists the 'oxygen of publicity' that they seek for their cowardly ideology.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Malmesbury said:

Has anyone called for this guy to be arrested?

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/04/hero-of-london-threw-bottles-and-chairs-at-terrorists-to-stop-them-stabbing-victims-6683054/

Throwing alcohol containers at (possible) muslims is surely a hate crime?

Bloody Millwall fans...

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Sky sources:first police officer on the scene (rugby player) took on all terrorists until he was forced to ground. Serious condition in hospital.

Incredibly brave.

Malmesbury said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlsoIndigo said:

IanB2 said:

The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least

Even if he got promoted onto the shortlist of 3-5,000 the security services only have the resources to watch a couple of hundred or so around the clock. It was suggested at the time of Lee Rigby they would need to be increased in size by atleast 20 fold to have a chance of watching all the people even just on the short list of known risks.

Clearly there are not the personnel to trail people round the clock. But that's partly a red herring because there is a lot of electronic surveillance that can be done more-or-less for free: phone use; internet use; spending; travel. Sure, it won't stop the lone wolf who snaps and grabs a kitchen knife but Abedi had been flagged up, travelled to Syria and Libya (where his family has interesting connections) and then built his own bomb. That should have been spotted imo.

Except when these characters borrow anothers passport and use cash/prepaid credit cards. And switch off their mobile phones...

TravelJunkie said:

AlsoIndigo said:

TravelJunkie said:

By cutting police numbers and giving them a 1% increase in 7 years because of this terrorist attack, the Tory majority will increase from 12 to 150.

What a result for the Tories. Cut services get more Tory MPs.

While Labour just want to abolish the security services and the armed police. Go and troll someone else.

Tories canvassing were happy last night. Theresa may is a lucky general.

theakes said:

The election SHOULD BE SUSPENDED. Then all the resources required to tackle the main problem can be harnessed for that purpose. In my view it should have been suspended after Manchester, if not cancelled. There is a lot of codswallop spoken after these incidents, like we are open to business and we will carry on regardless etc. Suspending the election does not mean the terroists have won, it is just plain common sense. Indeed I doubt if the election is the stimulous for the attacks, they would probably have happened anyway.

DM_Andy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

DM_Andy said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I notice the labour spinners on here have been attacking tory government over police numbers in response to terrorist attack.

Let's just remember for a second. What did jez do when asked if he would support an ISIS fund raiser release from prison for Christmas, go absolutely no bloody way. Of course not, he supported them. FFS...Robbing old ladies to fund ISIS and jezza goes into bat for them.

Then Of course we have mcIRA who supported getting rid of the spooks. 10k more plods in panda cars but no F##king intelligence agencies, that will do the trick.

These people disgust me.

So you seriously use "labour spinners" in the same post as "mcIRA" I think you should save the disgust for yourself.

A man who supported the IRA...Just do one. These people are filth. Come back Ed you were a bit of a plonker but at heart a decent person.

You're entitled to your opinion, I personally believe that neither Corbyn nor McDonnell has ever supported the IRA, but I don't know and neither do you. But the fact I've got a different point of view doesn't make me a spinner any more than you are.

rkrkrk said:

AlsoIndigo said:

TravelJunkie said:

By cutting police numbers and giving them a 1% increase in 7 years because of this terrorist attack, the Tory majority will increase from 12 to 150.

What a result for the Tories. Cut services get more Tory MPs.

While Labour just want to abolish the security services and the armed police. Go and troll someone else.

Do you really think Labour want to abolish the security services and armed police?
You think if there was somehow a Corbyn PM he would try to do this?

FrancisUrquhart said:

oxfordsimon said:

BBC have just described Yvette Cooper as chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee - which surely isn't the case. You can't have a parliamentary position when we don't currently have a House of Commons

They actually said may and the home secretary sit down and decide the terror level again last night.....

Charles said:

OchEye said:

That still leaves cuts of 20,000 to the Police, 30,000 to the army, cuts to the security services, cuts to the emergency services, cuts to the NHS, - the Tories keeping the country safe? Answers please to T May, c/o 10 Downing Street - at least until June 9th.

Just to understand your logic.

Let's say that a Labour government is elected and decides to pay all nurses £1m a year (assuming there are 25,000 nurses) at a cost of £25bn.

Then the Tories are elected and cut their salaries to £100,000 each. This saves £22.5bn of which £10bn is invested in new hospitals and £12.5bn used to reduce the deficit.

Are these "Tory cuts" a good thing or not?

rkrkrk said:

Do you really think Labour want to abolish the security services and armed police?
You think if there was somehow a Corbyn PM he would try to do this?

AlsoIndigo said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlsoIndigo said:

IanB2 said:

The bit I struggle with is his recent trips to Syria and Libya, where it appears he made contact with ISIS. I would have hoped for closer monitoring of such, but perhaps this would involve far too many people (and his family background provides cover for visiting Libya at least

Even if he got promoted onto the shortlist of 3-5,000 the security services only have the resources to watch a couple of hundred or so around the clock. It was suggested at the time of Lee Rigby they would need to be increased in size by atleast 20 fold to have a chance of watching all the people even just on the short list of known risks.

Clearly there are not the personnel to trail people round the clock. But that's partly a red herring because there is a lot of electronic surveillance that can be done more-or-less for free: phone use; internet use; spending; travel. Sure, it won't stop the lone wolf who snaps and grabs a kitchen knife but Abedi had been flagged up, travelled to Syria and Libya (where his family has interesting connections) and then built his own bomb. That should have been spotted imo.

Its actually quite easy to be completely anonymous on the internet, it just involves a bit of know-how, a certain amount of money and some prepaid cellphones.

Even the suggestions from the government and others about breaking into things like WhatApp are really pretty pointless. The Signal Protocol it uses to do the encryption is free and open source so anyone can use it in their own app. https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android as are the algorithms, and we know that ISIS have some quite smart IT people working for them.