To ask for a summary on the Tory v Labour stance on what to do about terrorism?

[Bearbehind]

This is looking like being the most critical issue of our times at the moment despite my thoughts that Brexit was the crux of this election.

Can anyone cut through the waffle and tell us what the 2 main parties are offering to do about extremists and terrorism?

"A more hypocritical, ignorant and generally stupid woman I would struggle to find"

Just goes to show Oxford isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Ah, 'cult hero worship' now.

Still nothing sensible to say?

"Absolutley Bertrand he's doing what career politicians do. He saying what needs to be said to get elected."

No. He's doing what people who believe in parliamentary democracy do.

"I'm going to have to vote Tory on Thurs..."

Why? Because you don't like Corbyn?

To be a bit fair to TM, she was hamstrung as Home Office for the first 5 years by Gideon's tight purse strings & the Lib Dems liberal stance on security.

If she ever needed to do a massive unashamed U-turn, the time is now though.

Put increased security funding, and review of the current counter terrorism practice firmly on the agenda, and announce increase in policing as a priority.

Be as shameless as Corbyn is about his amazing sea-change in attitude to Trident, terrorists, anti terror policies etc.

I believe that JC is a republican.

Do you think he's planning to unseat the Monarchy if he wins too?

JC hasn't changed his attitude to Trident etc. That's all been covered up thread.

"Be as shameless as Corbyn is about his amazing sea-change in attitude to Trident, terrorists, anti terror policies etc."

He hasnMt changed his attitudes to any of those things.

He's prepared to fully implement things that are diametrically opposed to his much vaunted 'principles'.

He is, therefore, not as principled as he purports to be.

As such, he is a typical politician.
Perfectly willing to sacrifice himself at the altar of power.

Ok he's a fantastic wonderful human being and he will lead us al to the promised land of full employment, fully funded NHS, wonderful schools, first class public services, thousands more police officers and doctors and of course no future terrorist attacks and of course cradle to the grave social and welfare care and free child care for everyone.

All by taxing those nasty rich 5% of people and putting up corporation tax.

And then children we woke up.

you think that's bad betrand - i'm a lifelong labour supporter considering voting ukip on thursday.

"Ok he's a fantastic wonderful human being and he will lead us al to the promised land of full employment, fully funded NHS, wonderful schools, first class public services, thousands more police officers and doctors and of course no future terrorist attacks and of course cradle to the grave social and welfare care and free child care for everyone"

Oh, don't be silly.
Can!t be arsed to discuss with people who say that sort of thing.

But maybe look up parliamentary democracy?

I think you'll find most of your post is in the Labour manifesto waitforitdear.

Fully costed too, unlike the Tory's.

Who could argue with that?

That's my problem with these discussions Bertrand.

As soon as discussions about leadership or the economy become specific, the right start spouting about 'magic money trees', 'unicorns', 'superior moral beings' etc.

Almost as though they have no sensible arguments to make.

My goodness, some people are getting rather rattled and ratty, aren't they?

I think Diane Abbott went to Cambridge, not Oxford, though not sure it makes much difference. She is clearly not conventionally unintelligent as getting into Cambridge in the early 70s as a black grammar school girl was a clear academic achievement, but nowadays she doesn't seem to know much about what she's doing and is a terrible interviewee.

Mind you, Theresa May strikes me as rather limited in her intelligence too - can't think on her feet and just repeats platitudes. She's a classic head girl who simply does what she's told to get the good grades.

I don't really understand since Theresa May was Home Secretary for 6 years and has been PM for the last 10 months why she didn't think Enough Was Enough before and start doing something about it.

Nope not right an ex member of the Labour Party who resigned when Corbyn was elected and unfortunately everukne sensible and credible refused to work with him.

He's left with Abbott etc. Truly terrifying.

And the costings don't include the billions it would cost to renationalise the railways etc.

And while the right talk about cult heroes and magic money trees the left spout the sun and daily mail readers and het equally personal.

However the cult hero status around Corbyn doesn't exist with May. Thank god.

You might find if Jeremy Corbyn were actually in power as Prime Minister he would have a wider choice of Front Bench colleagues - coz, you know, actually being Foreign Secretary as opposed to Shadow FS is quite cool if you're a politician who wants to see your policies and beliefs enacted. Just a thought.

'The cult hero status .... doesn't exist with May'.

No shit. She's completely disintegrated during this campaign.

No MP should have a 'cult hero status' whoever they are.

Seamus Milne's advice to Jeremy Corbyn last week wrt how to most effectively shut down the nuclear question:

"It's a sort of proxy question really, so that's why I am always saying I think we should just say that 'we will always do whatever is necessary and effective to protect our people"

Does that phrase ring a bell?

Last night, in JC's speech?

He is on record saying he opposes shoot to kill - however, he deploys the same line last night on shoot-to-kill:

"whatever is necessary and effective".

Corbyn doesn't outside of the right wing of MN as far as I can see piglet.

charmageddon that has been done to death on this thread and other places.

ontopofthesunset

Yes agree with your post.

It may have been 'done to death', but it is important.

He is repeatedly deploying a stock phrase to deal with questions that he does not want to answer truthfully.