[Politics] Are Labour going to turn this country around?

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Whatever the rights and wrongs here, dont you think describing the angst of a family who has had a member murdered as 'bleating' a little inappropriate?

The "rights and wrongs" as you put it is the issue.

Here is what Yvette Cooper told them:

"I am aware that you have since requested a full public inquiry.
"As you will know, the coroner looked carefully at whether to resume an inquest into Sir David's death following the criminal trial, but concluded there were no additional questions that could be answered through an investigation of this kind, that had not already been considered as part of the trial.
"In the circumstances it is therefore hard to see how an inquiry would be able to go beyond what has been reviewed in the trial, Prevent learning review, coroner's report, as well as Lord Anderson and Essex Police's forthcoming conclusions.
"On that basis, the Government cannot establish a public inquiry."

Nevertheless, perhaps my view that the daughter's accusations (that this is a "betrayal") is bleating was harsh.
Lets see whether those who both enjoyed and were angry at the same time by the "Labour Betrayal" will also step back....

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

True - so why is prevent still operating in its current format if everyone knows it's not fit for purpose?

One assumes that this will be dealt with.
I am not sure Labour can change everything just like that.
Were they to prioritize this they would be accused of "fiddling with details over people who shouldn't be here,
when they should of been dealing with the economy they have ruined".....

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I (somewhat hesitantly) applaud Labour for tackling the issue per se. However, how they go about 'slashing welfare' will be crucial.

If those most in need such as the genuinely (I use that word reluctantly because there are those with disabilities that desperately need far greater support and those that are abusing the word 'disability' to milk the system) disabled, people with severe learning difficulties, severe health issues etc have their support cut then Labour will just be Tory with a different set of clothes.

Trouble is that I think most of us would agree that the overall benefits/social security bill needs to come down but how to do that fairly? Not so much.

You are right to raise an eyebrow.
I have always assumed that the sum of benefits unclaimed is more than the sum of dubious benefits paid.
But this has always been politicized so I can't tell.
Everyone knows someone maximizing their position, or cheating the system as it is regarded by many,
And everyone knows someone who is really struggling and probably not claiming for things that could yeild them some cash.

Labour are supposedly the helping hand, rather than the iron fist.
But given where we are, all bets are off.
I am hoping for pragmatism. The years of dogma are hopefully behind us.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

David Amess.

I’ve seen the bereaved family interviewed, they weren’t party political. They just wanted a wider enquiry. I can see both points of view.

I think that saying Labour have 'betrayed' them makes it potentially party political.
Why should they get a public inquiry when there are quite a few other people who have been killed in the last few years,
whose families have no chance of a public inquiry?
And . . . an inquiry about what, exactly?
The only topic I can see is how come this mad islamoterrorist nut job was allowed to walk the streets?

I am a bit surprised Labour didn't agree to a public inquiry because it may have shown up the relevant governments of the time (Cameron. May, Johnson) to have been at fault.
So, paradoxically this attests to an apparent lack of pettiness and desire for cheap political point scoring by Labour,
which consequently affirms the correctness of the decision.

Bottom line, we can't all get what we want,
and we don't all have easy access to the Evening Standard and other media outlets to press our point home.

 

[Weststander]

I think that saying Labour have 'betrayed' them makes it potentially party political.
Why should they get a public inquiry when there are quite a few other people who have been killed in the last few years,
whose families have no chance of a public inquiry?
And . . . an inquiry about what, exactly?
The only topic I can see is how come this mad islamoterrorist nut job was allowed to walk the streets?

I am a bit surprised Labour didn't agree to a public inquiry because it may have shown up the relevant governments of the time (Cameron. May, Johnson) to have been at fault.
So, paradoxically this attests to an apparent lack of pettiness and desire for cheap political point scoring by Labour,
which consequently affirms the correctness of the decision.

Bottom line, we can't all get what we want,
and we don't all have easy access to the Evening Standard and other media outlets to press our point home.

I did say I could see both points of view. If anything it would ultimately be an attack on Tory administrations for not financing Prevent correctly, as the murder was under their watch. Full sympathy for his family for me, understandably in their view doing the best for their Dad/husband.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I did say I could see both points of view. If anything it would ultimately be an attack on Tory administrations for not financing Prevent correctly, as the murder was under their watch. Full sympathy for his family for me, understandably in their view doing the best for their Dad/husband.

Yes, I will row back.....
Nobody wants their dad murdered.
He seemed like a lovely family man.
The fact that some mad filth could kill him, as an act of abstract tokenism, is a disgrace.
Perhaps Cooper overpromised.
Easy to do.