Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

In 1974 my predecessor as West Midlands Chief Constable, Sir Derrick Capper, faced a sustained UK IRA bombing campaign with 6,842 police officers.  Forty years later and after a horrific series of attacks in London and Manchester, I face a modern terror threat with 6,600 officers – a number that has already fallen by close to 2,000 and is set to fall further.

Numbers, of course, do not tell the full story.  Today we have the advantage of different powers, tactics and technology. We have specialist police staff and PCSOs. But we also have a much wider mission, from tackling anti-social behaviour to cyber-crime; acting as the service of last resort for people who have fallen through the gaps of other services.  Our population is larger and more diverse with digital technology underpinning daily life.  In this context, the fall of 20,000 officers across the country is an important part of the equation.

The government has already increased spending on counter terrorism, part-funded increases in firearms officers and given policing flat cash protection from 2015.  However, countering terrorism is predicated on dedicated counter terrorism resources fitting into a broader police service. The firearms commanders, casualty bureau, custody staff, body recovery teams and uniformed officers patrolling crowded spaces that are so central to preventing and responding to a terror attack are paid for by core police funding. Over two thirds of the policing effort after the Westminster attack was not counter-terrorism funded. This figure will be much higher following the Manchester attack. 

The current flat cash settlement for policing means force budgets will fall in real terms. We are guaranteed a shrinking government grant each year, which can only keep up with 2015 levels if police and crime commissioners increase local taxation to the maximum. Taking into account inflation and cost pressures there will be less money every year for forces on top of real terms cuts of 18 per cent since 2010.  Many forces are now using considerable reserves to maintain current staff numbers, which when spent will see numbers falling even further.

If we are to sustain the protection citizens want and need, police leaders need to continue to reform, look hard at what needs to be done differently, and be bold and innovative in rising to the challenge.  But we also need to work constructively with the new government on what is needed from police funding to tackle the threats we face.  With lots of discussion about police funding and officer numbers in recent days and in the election campaign, I wanted to set out the three key areas that we think will make a real difference.

Firstly, the funding forces receive needs to be stabilised with real terms protection for policing as a whole. Last year we saw the prison service snap under pressure with riots in Birmingham Prison. We cannot afford this to happen to policing but the strain is showing from recent weeks and we’d have real challenges in dealing with something like the 2011 riots again. When things break recovery is never quick, and in policing it takes considerable time to recruit and train staff.

Secondly, the money we have can be spent more effectively.   Chiefs and PCCs are working together to change the way we deliver forensics, armed policing, surveillance and major investigations; making them more affordable and effective with surplus costs available to reinvest in other priorities. We need continued support from the government to drive through changes like this.   It’s also time to ask why a growing proportion of the police budget is being allocated to managing complaints or non-policing spend at a time when our core role is under strain.  

Thirdly, targeted increases in government spending will help us tackle the threats we face. Government is already supporting work to enhance our ability to exploit the digital world to keep people safe; more investment will be needed with a growing cyber threat. Counter terrorism policing is stretched and is in no place to deliver efficiency savings.  We will also need to think very carefully about the need for enhanced protection for our officers who run towards the terrorists. 

However, the answer cannot simply be to do more in the shadows or be better armed.  A significant cohort of those influenced by extremist views live in communities where public services have a legitimacy deficit.  Visible, accessible policing cannot afford to shrink further. Police leaders value local neighbourhood policing so strongly, not from a dewy-eyed, sentimental yearning for the past but because it helps us gather intelligence, prevent harm and build public trust. A service that is not meeting the needs of local people is not likely to win their trust or assure them of their safety. Without investment or protection this time-served feature of policing will disappear at huge cost to our nation’s security.

The attacks in London and Manchester show we have a police service whose officers have shown incredible bravery defending the public. In the past few weeks, people have demonstrated a huge affection for the work of policing, recognising our officers are unquestionably the frontline of our nation’s security. It is time for police leaders to work with our new government and make the case for realistic investments in our service at this critical time.

National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Finance, Chief Constable Dave Thompson

[Webbo]

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't know about "hate", but you certainly have a point about the headline - it's selective, to say the least.

 

It was because of such slanted content in news articles that I switched from Guardian to Independent when the latter was first published.

I hated the way the Guardian pandered to its readers' expectations, as the paper perceived them....and it still does sometimes (only buy it on Saturday now). 

 

It's fair enough to publish opinion articles by columnists arguing a particular case - but not to slant news articles like that.

Yes, perceptions of xenophobia are probably an issue, but the slump in the pound obviously is, too - and a serious news article should make that point properly.

Yes, the Mail and Sun are worse....but a serious broadsheet should be setting the bar much higher, surely?

The Guardian can write what it likes, I'm not fussed, I was just making a point. Not quite trolling but somewhere in the spectrum.

[Darkon84]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The Guardian can write what it likes, I'm not fussed, I was just making a point. Not quite trolling but somewhere in the spectrum.

 

To be quite honest, the Guardian, Daily Mail and The Sun can all go in the same bin. They're all as guilty as each other. Oh and lets not forget The Independent. For me, that's overtaken the Guardian in terms of one sided nonsense.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Darkon84 said:

 

To be quite honest, the Guardian, Daily Mail and The Sun can all go in the same bin. They're all as guilty as each other. Oh and lets not forget The Independent. For me, that's overtaken the Guardian in terms of one sided nonsense.

I don't expect papers to be neutral, that's not their job. Lets have the full range of opinions and people can buy what suits their own prejudices.

[Darkon84]

Just now, Webbo said:

I don't expect papers to be neutral, that's not their job. Lets have the full range of opinions and people can buy what suits their own prejudices.

 

That's a true point and it doesn't bother me that they do, I just find it frustrating when people clutch so tensely to their chosen paper like the Guardian so tightly that all other opinions must be wrong. It's a little annoying too h ow the Mail & the Sun can get such dogs abuse, yet people think the Guardian & Independent are the paper of the Gods  

We all know I lean to the right, however I don't read the Mail but do read the Guardian online (as infuriating as it can be sometimes), to take in other views, upon which I can make my own judgement. 

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

The Guardian can write what it likes, I'm not fussed, I was just making a point. Not quite trolling but somewhere in the spectrum.

 

If you were not-quite-trolling, you made a decent point in doing so. That headline, and the content to some extent, were slanted to suit a particular agenda.

 

I'm sure you're not fussed, as I presume you don't read it very often. I'm less fussed than I was 25 years ago, because only read the Saturday paper now. Otherwise, I just read articles of interest online.

 

I'd still like there to be a quality broadsheet that wrote news articles in a thorough but balanced way. Opinion columns are a different matter. Although I'd want to be made to think (including by politics I disagreed with), I'm centre-left so I'd probably want to read more leftish columns than rightish columns. Obviously there's an element of bias in what you choose to report as news, but when you report it, it should be straight and balanced (quoting evidence for analysis, or different opinions if it is not clear exactly what happened.....and there can clearly be different views about the reasons for a decline in EU immigration).

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If you were not-quite-trolling, you made a decent point in doing so. That headline, and the content to some extent, were slanted to suit a particular agenda.

 

I'm sure you're not fussed, as I presume you don't read it very often. I'm less fussed than I was 25 years ago, because only read the Saturday paper now. Otherwise, I just read articles of interest online.

 

I'd still like there to be a quality broadsheet that wrote news articles in a thorough but balanced way. Opinion columns are a different matter. Although I'd want to be made to think (including by politics I disagreed with), I'm centre-left so I'd probably want to read more leftish columns than rightish columns. Obviously there's an element of bias in what you choose to report as news, but when you report it, it should be straight and balanced (quoting evidence for analysis, or different opinions if it is not clear exactly what happened.....and there can clearly be different views about the reasons for a decline in EU immigration).

I read the Guardian online occasionally. There are some writers I like. Michael White, Simon Jenkins. I don't agree with a lot of what John Harris says but I think he's a very honest writer.

[davieG]

3 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

 

That's a true point and it doesn't bother me that they do, I just find it frustrating when people clutch so tensely to their chosen paper like the Guardian so tightly that all other opinions must be wrong. It's a little annoying too h ow the Mail & the Sun can get such dogs abuse, yet people think the Guardian & Independent are the paper of the Gods  

We all know I lean to the right, however I don't read the Mail but do read the Guardian online (as infuriating as it can be sometimes), to take in other views, upon which I can make my own judgement. 

 

Isn't that the basis of party politics so I can't see why you'd expect people to support a party without question to then question the media that represents those parties.

I suspect that they all get dogs abuse from their respective opposing political believers.

[Darkon84]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

Isn't that the basis of party politics so I can't see why you'd expect people to support a party without question to then question the media that represents those parties.

I suspect that they all get dogs abuse from their respective opposing political believers.

 

Valid point there, and yes, certain papers do support certain parties too, so maybe it's just me and I'm too open minded for my own good  It would be wonderful if a new paper or outlet were to spring up, provided by journalists who actually do the job for journaIism and the truth, taking in all angles and research to provide a balanced conclusion, rather than from angles.

I lean to the right but (as I've said before) won't ever rule out the possibility of voting another way if I think it's best for the country or myself. That's why I read a wide spectrum of opinions, so I can form my own after taking it from all angles, rather than just surrounding myself within an echo chamber, which a lot of people seem to do. 

I guess the Guardian and Independent will get dogs abuse from sections, though it's not something I see a lot of on the social platforms I use. 

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I read the Guardian online occasionally. There are some writers I like. Michael White, Simon Jenkins. I don't agree with a lot of what John Harris says but I think he's a very honest writer.

 

White can be amusing, Jenkins can be challenging (in a good way) and I like Harris not so much for what he says as for the fact that he's one of those journalists who gets out of the London bubble and does proper research.

 

Larry Elliott is good on economic issues (he was pro-Brexit, unusually for the Guardian). Deborah Orr (Mrs. Will Self) picks some unusual issues and cuts through with some interesting opinions.

 

You or Matt should recommend me some Telegraph, Times or Spectator journalists. I read their articles occasionally but don't often note the names of good writers. Fraser Nelson and Tim Montgomerie have been two.

[Strokes]

I don't religiously read any newspaper and I don't purchase any. Why bother when you can view most articles online?

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

I don't religiously read any newspaper. 

 

Not even the Church Times or the Catholic Herald?

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I don't religiously read any newspaper and I don't purchase any. Why bother when you can view most articles online?

 

Surely that's just semantics?

 

Whether you read a 'newspaper' in it's physical form or online, you are still reading the same content.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

 

Valid point there, and yes, certain papers do support certain parties too, so maybe it's just me and I'm too open minded for my own good  It would be wonderful if a new paper or outlet were to spring up, provided by journalists who actually do the job for journaIism and the truth, taking in all angles and research to provide a balanced conclusion, rather than from angles.

I lean to the right but (as I've said before) won't ever rule out the possibility of voting another way if I think it's best for the country or myself. That's why I read a wide spectrum of opinions, so I can form my own after taking it from all angles, rather than just surrounding myself within an echo chamber, which a lot of people seem to do. 

I guess the Guardian and Independent will get dogs abuse from sections, though it's not something I see a lot of on the social platforms I use. 

1

I'm thinking if that's the case then you're looking in the wrong places. The corner of the political spectrum that despises the Grauniad has a significant presence on social media.

[Darkon84]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm thinking if that's the case then you're looking in the wrong places. The corner of the political spectrum that despises the Grauniad has a significant presence on social media.

 

Oh I'm not doubting it occurs (though my previous reply was perhaps a little hazy). I don't tend to use a great deal of forums etc to be honest, only really here, and Facebook (which has been on a real agenda pushing drive lately, and it' hasn't even been subtle). I tend to avoid Reddit & 4Chan etc like the plague these days.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Darkon84 said:

 

Oh I'm not doubting it occurs (though my previous reply was perhaps a little hazy). I don't tend to use a great deal of forums etc to be honest, only really here, and Facebook (which has been on a real agenda pushing drive lately, and it' hasn't even been subtle). I tend to avoid Reddit & 4Chan etc like the plague these days.

Yeah, that's fair - though Reddit isn't entirely alt-right.

 

TBH though Reddit and 4chan are a bit less mainstream - for a more widespread example, you only need look at certain Twitter hashtags and what people have written in response to them to get an idea of the presence there in particular.

I know you're not saying it, but I never bought into the idea that the right side of the political compass (and esp the alt-right) was outnumbered in terms of influence (rather than just numbers) by those on the other side on most forms of social media.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

24 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Surely that's just semantics?

 

Whether you read a 'newspaper' in it's physical form or online, you are still reading the same content.

 

Not according to Dacre... the Daily Mail / Mail Online are completely unrelated entities (who knew)!

[Izzy]

I don't buy a newspaper or read articles on-line.

 

I just wait for someone on here to do all the research and post a link to something worth reading.

 

Thanks everyone for doing all the leg work for me.

 

Foxes Talk, your one stop shop for news 

 

 

[Darkon84]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Yeah, that's fair - though Reddit isn't entirely alt-right.

 

TBH though Reddit and 4chan are a bit less mainstream - for a more widespread example, you only need look at certain Twitter hashtags and what people have written in response to them to get an idea of the presence there in particular.

I know you're not saying it, but I never bought into the idea that the right side of the political compass (and esp the alt-right) was outnumbered in terms of influence (rather than just numbers) by those on the other side on most forms of social media.

 

Yea Reddit isn't exactly a hotbed of 'right' activity but it's still somewhere off the beaten track where people can have their voice and say a lot easier etc. Thankfully, I've never joined Twitter and don't intend to, though from what I HAVE read regarding that, both sides have quite vocal support and it seems to bring out the worst in some people who think they can spout what they like relatively anonymous.

On your last point, I have to disagree (to an extent). Facebook has been known to, admitted to, and is currently pushing quite a left sided agenda. 

[Guest MattP]

37 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

You or Matt should recommend me some Telegraph, Times or Spectator journalists. I read their articles occasionally but don't often note the names of good writers. Fraser Nelson and Tim Montgomerie have been two.

I actually can't stand the Telegraph, it's bias and subservience to the Conservative party even makes me blush. 

 

The Times has a great variation of columnists from across the spectrum, Philip Collins, Matthew Syed and David Aaronovitch do a great job from the left side of politics and Melanie Phillips, Fraser Nelson and Niall Ferguson do a great job from the other side.

 

Michael Gove did a great column for a while but he seems to have gone now he's back on the cabinet. 

 

In the Spectator Rod Liddle and Douglas Murray are my favourites. Liddle is often hilarious, writes about music, football and politics in such a funny way, he did a musical review on a "queercore" album last month that was short, so simple but brilliant. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

 

Yea Reddit isn't exactly a hotbed of 'right' activity but it's still somewhere off the beaten track where people can have their voice and say a lot easier etc. Thankfully, I've never joined Twitter and don't intend to, though from what I HAVE read regarding that, both sides have quite vocal support and it seems to bring out the worst in some people who think they can spout what they like relatively anonymous.

On your last point, I have to disagree (to an extent). Facebook has been known to, admitted to, and is currently pushing quite a left sided agenda. 

 

Hence my carefully curated use of the term 'most'. Facebook is one of the exceptions.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

I actually can't stand the Telegraph, it's bias and subservience to the Conservative party even makes me blush. 

 

The Times has a great variation of columnists from across the spectrum, Philip Collins, Matthew Syed and David Aaronovitch do a great job from the left side of politics and Melanie Phillips, Fraser Nelson and Niall Ferguson do a great job from the other side.

 

Michael Gove did a great column for a while but he seems to have gone now he's back on the cabinet. 

 

In the Spectator Rod Liddle and Douglas Murray are my favourites. Liddle is often hilarious, writes about music, football and politics in such a funny way, he did a musical review on a "queercore" album last month that was short, so simple but brilliant. 

1

Honestly Matt, could you unpack why you think Liddle is great a little more, because I honestly don't get it - the satire may be good but the blatant misogyny he often displays is just a bit much.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Honestly Matt, could you unpack why you think Liddle is great a little more, because I honestly don't get it - the satire may be good but the blatant misogyny he often displays is just a bit much.

He's intelligent and funny. Anyone who is that has my heart. Most of his so called "misogyny" is a pisstake. I'm sure I read once he even named his daughter after one if the suffragettes. 

 

There is a reason why the Sunday Times, Morning Star, Sun and Spectator have employed him.

 

To be able to write for a demographic and audience that is as vast as that takes some some serious ability. 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, MattP said:

He's intelligent and funny. Anyone who is that has my heart. Most of his so called "misogyny" is a pisstake. I'm sure I read once he even named his daughter after one if the suffragettes. 

 

There is a reason why the Sunday Times, Morning Star, Sun and Spectator have employed him.

 

To be able to write for a demographic and audience that is as vast as that takes some some serious ability. 

3

If that's really the case then it's a bloody good example of Poe's Law in action.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, leicsmac said:

If that's really the case then it's a bloody good example of Poe's Law in action.

This is why I like him, I like people who aren't afraid to say what they think. I like controversy and I like those who call out hypocrisy.

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/if-youre-not-tired-of-london-youre-tired-of-life/