@JaniieJones
'Aside from the costs and logistics of having a police support everywhere (never going to happen), it would be so smothering to live like that'
I don't think they need police support everywhere but at the very least some basic security on the door when doing public appearance would seem common sense. Just someone trained to spot suspicious behaviour, to know how to tackle people intent on doing harm.
It sounds like the attacker 'queued patiently for his turn' from what I've read this morning.
Maybe this isn't true, but I think we may find this example shows the problem of continuing to be accessible to all up pretty well.
How viable is it to search people entering a church or any other building to meet an MP? If challenged at the door would it protect people? - Keeping in mind other members of the public in close proximity and staff charged with doing the challenging.
You cannot just have surgeries in various places in your constituency to make it easier for people without transport or mobility to get to you then. You have to have a singular base, probably with metal detection installed.
At the moment the way parties run constituency offices they are mainly resourced and paid for by the party with rent then being reclaimed as an expense rather than there being a fixed constituency office owned by government which the new MP moves into. If you are going to think about installing this type of security which perhaps involves good infrastructure and consideration given to suitable location, you would need to completely overhaul how constituency offices are managed and who owns them. This alone is likely to cost £££.
What i think we will also ultimately see is the need to pick up worrying behaviour before this point and that involves intelligence much earlier in the system and identification of individuals deemed a potential problem.
There are also side effects and consequences with this.
It is more likely to mean formal prearranged meetings with the public only, vetting before the meeting by intelligence and the requirement of showing ID.
This then causes certain barriers for some of the most vulnerable in our society who are currently still served by MPs. People with visa issues or asking for asylum particularly. And people generally with a background which perhaps isnt so great and does involve a history of being known to police and authorities. And it will put off others who simply have a fear of authority and this type of formality (if you have come from somewhere with a very authoritarian regime this is a real concern).
I think once you open up the debate on this fully, it starts to show why we need much more focus on why we need public respect for MPs generally, more awareness of the daily pretty dull and overlooked nature of case work for pretty desparate people which is really crucial and why even low level abuse creates a massive problem and endangers MPs (and those around them) more.
A culture where personal attacks and abuse is normal isn't healthy. MPs need to learn that doing it themselves to win political points is counter productive and endangers their own safety. Its a cheap and dangerous tactic.
I actually feel for Angela Rayner at this point for that reason because she's now part of a very unhelpful and unhealthy cyclic backlash. All parties have to start to make better decisions about putting their foot in their mouths unnecessarily and need to be able to better qualify and explain reasoning when stepping into controversial subjects avoiding any kind of ad homiem attacks. I don't think this is as difficult as some might profess. Nor do i think it impinges on democratic freedom of speech on crucial issues. Being respectful even when you dislike someone or disagree with you doesn't stop you getting your message across if you are focused on issues not personalities (and actually this still allows you to raise questions about professionalism - eg when MPs decide their priority is to go on holiday rather than address a pressing crisis).
Someone has to start saying that the model for society and social media generally needs to shift away from emotional appeals and opinions to much drier nitty gritty of detail and problem identifying and solving.
I read this thread back and noted a study Id seen reported in the last couple of weeks which highlighted there is a problem with the public not knowing the basic difference between established fact and pure opinion and how this important (including when trying to challenge established fact) and how this is particularly true for younger people.
Volitity in society often stems from this and how emotional decision making takes over from rational (its the core of extremism of all kinds).
If you want to tone down that you have to calm the public down generally speaking. Police are trained in de-esculation skills. There is a lot to be said for applying this to politicians.
However thats not how recent election strategies have been run and won... And its not how the media gets money from selling papers or getting per click advertising revenue.
And I do think thats ultimately were the problem is, and fuck knows how you change where the model on media funding and election winning from where we are now. Too much money and power involved.