AIBU to think Theresa May puts cuts and austerity before her duty to public safety?

[EastMidsMummy]

Theresa May as Home Secretary cut police numbers at a time when the terrorist threat was growing, on the grounds of austerity.

At the same time, her government cut taxes for billionaires and let multinational companies get away with paying no or next to no tax.

Her plans for austerity continue. How can anyone trust her to fund the services that the police - let alone schools and hospitals - need.

Have you watched the Dianne Abbott interview on terrorism OP? Are you happy that a Labour party who have DA as shadow Home Secretary and think she is a credible choice for Home Secretary will be able to protect us from the terrorism threat?

I don't think Abbott would be Home Secretary under Corbyn.

Counter terrorism budget (including police) was increased in the Osbourne years. Substantially some years.

But when there isn't enough money to pay for something, it gets cut. Whether it is national or local level (for police funding involves both levels, eg the precept set by the London mayor)

YANBU

she made an unusual decision when cutting police numbers, that was always going to come back and bite her on the arse. most tory leaders have been more sensible. austerity leads to trouble and the police are natural conservatives. its a bit like trump pissing off the fbi, stupid politics. I worry for the political instincts of a person who cant see that. means trouble ahead for us all if they are in charge.

Okay we get it - you don't like TM - how many more threads are you starting about it today?

One propaganda thread would have done thanks.

Sorry. Should have started another Diane Abbott thread...

I don't think Abbott would be Home Secretary under Corbyn
I agree.

May's focus on idiotic austerity have put the people in danger.

Sorry. Should have started another Diane Abbott thread...

Could have been one thread though eh eastmids? Do you think Teresa May is a bit dim AND puts cuts and austerity etc etc. You get the jist.

Yawn.

Neo-liberal right wingers believe that the state shouldn't have any remit, beyond a "nightwatchman" role, ie police & security. We don't even have that at the moment when people can't go to concerts and bars without being maimed and killed due to police & security services cuts. People in less dense population areas are sitting ducks. Even from a Friedmanesque pov, Theresa May is an abject failure.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about Home Secretaries, politics and the election. Got it, "don't mention Dianne Abbott".

TM has a proven track record of reducing police numbers for ordinary people whilst bolstering protection for the elite.

Has a declared intention of continuing to do so whilst putting all public services under enough pressure to destroy them.

NHS, Fire Services, Education, Army and Navy with the full intention of reducing taxes for her mates.

TM and the Tories care nothing for ordinary people and are using fear from their own failures in an attempt to retain power.

While I'm at it they have also separated us from Europe, the authors of that debacle have now f*** off and left the incompetent TM to get her 5 minutes of glory.

No. Have you read Harris, or are you just spouting off soundbites?

You'll already be aware May increased funding to MI5+6,and GCHQ since becoming PM (you are aware of that, right?) - and the Harris Report specifically mentioned police numbers, saying that they don't need to be increased.

And presumably you're also aware that Cressida Dick says that there is no resourcing issue?

As a result, YABU.

(I am not a Tory and haven't voted for them this election)

As somebody rightly pointed out the other day, corporations are not these magic pots of money waiting to be taxed. If you make the tax regime unattractive to large companies, then what will happen in this globalised economy? They will move elsewhere, to a country with a more attractive regime - and those jobs will go with them. Economics is not an exact science. I am not an economist - nor am I a Conservative, for that matter - but the amount of simplistic tripe that's spouted about "taxes" and "the rich" is staggering. Yes, you can have a top tax rate of 90% if you wish - but it creates a disincentive to work for people in that bracket, many of whom will be employing others as well as paying tax. You can increase corporation tax to 90%, bit then don't be surprised if unemployment rises as businesses relocate. You can provide gold plated ambulances for old people to visit the doctor and pensions of six figures....but you can't be surprised if all the young people leave when their tax rate rises, meaning there will be nobody left to pay those pensions.

It's a balancing act. Different politicians have different views about what is important and where that balance lies. But if we want a policeman on every corner, then we need to accept that that money needs to come from somewhere.

Can you give a reference for TM's 'declared intention' of continuing to 'reduce police numbers for ordinary people whilst bolstering protection for the elite'.

Yes, she does, and she can't say she wasn't warned by senior police officers re national security.
Governments have a duty of care to the citizens of whatever country they are in charge of. They work for us, in our best interests, not their pals interests.
If a country has a healthy, well educated, well housed, population who feel they can trust the policies of their government to keep them safe, then that is the key to a successful country. It is how they, in this case governments, treat the "least" of their citizens is the measure of their worth, and the Tory governments have always fallen short in their duty of care to the "least" , and it isn't going to change now.
All politicians promise the voters the kingdom of heaven, and then fall short

YANBU

All politicians promise the voters the kingdom of heaven, and then fall short

They do. Because people won't vote for someone who puts across a detailed, measured, thought out economic plan. Because they either can't or won't take the time to understand it. People vote for people standing in front of a bus promising free money. So politicians pander to that and offer the "free beer and circus" shit. It's our own fault.

Internal estimates seen by the Times suggest that police ranks could be cut from 32,000 to 28,000 due to government pressure to come up with savings

From 22nd May 2017, refers to the Met Police. I think they are being expected to make budget cuts of around another £400 million having already made cuts of around £600 million.

But anti-terrorism funding has gone up significantly.

In the face of this threat I will be be seeking for London and for policing generally more resourcing Cressida Dick

Reported today in the Metro.