Yes, a classic double-tap.
Printable View
Well I have absolutely no memory of the second thing you mention, so if you don't mind, I'll just dismiss that as böllocks I never said.
The 1,000 people is a number I picked from listening to a security expert on Radio 4 this morning tallking in general terms about how many UK residents are currently on terror watch lists. The 95% stands to reason, since every terrorist attacker we have is invariably 'known to the security services', so it follows logically that if you take everyone who is known to the security services off the streets, you will dramatically reduce the risk of terrorist attacks. That is simply common sense. What is not common sense is having these people out there, knowing they are dangerous and doing nothing.
The chances of detaining anyone who is entirely innocent who 'just happens to be muslim' is vanishingly small unless you believe that the security services currently have people on their lists who have never supported, espoused or proselytised for Islamic terrorism. Are they really that incompetent, do you think?
Terrible, terrible attrocity but when the dust settles and emotions subside the voters will take a fresh look at brother Corbyn and run a mile.
Whether or not he actually has form as a terrorist apologist, he is as weak as piss water and security/defence will now dwarf the social care wobble. Game over for the Labour revival - in fact she will get a genuine landslide now.
The thing is, we've just been attacked under May. I don't think it's his weakness on security that damages Corbyn. The public can see that whoever is in charge, we are still vulnerable. And the number of people who want genuine hard-line policies brought in to tackle the matter are either too small in number or know it will never happen.
I just don't think the security issue plays with the electorate.
It plays with the electorate if you push it, but it's almost impossible to push it successfully without being accused of trying to politicise people's deaths. The reason people won't vote Corbyn, though, is not because he's a terrorist sympathiser (although he is), but because he's Jeremy Corbyn. There might be people who'll say to a pollster they'll vote for him, but when it comes to putting a tick in a box, it won't happen.
I sincerely hope you're right.
But I do think there has been a significant shift in recent weeks and it's more than a dead cat bounce. Quite simply people are no longer too embarrassed or ambivalent enough about him based on his media image to vote for him. If an unprecedented mobilisation of the youth vote also materialised, I don't think it's utterly improbable that he at least enters polling day with a potential path to victory.