Politics

Jeremy Corbyn says that if he was Prime Minister, he would authorise the police to use ‘whatever force is necessary’ against terrorists. Is that true? Is he really ready to go back on decades of suspicion of the police, of hostility to the security forces of an imperialist British state? How can this be reconciled with the man who was so obviously unwilling to back the use of lethal force in that interview with Laura Kuenssberg that’s doing the rounds again. Jeremy Corbyn opposes ‘shoot to kill’ policy. Does he mean it? I have no idea. But the comment confirms that Mr Corbyn’s newfound political ruthlessness is the story of this

Theresa May is under pressure over cuts to armed police in the wake of the London attack. This morning, Culture Secretary Karen Bradley popped up on Good Morning Britain to try and defend the Prime Minister. The only problem? Bradley refused to answer any questions. Here’s her awkward exchange with Piers Morgan: Piers Morgan: Do you know if the number of armed police has gone up or down in the last six years? Do you know the answer? Karen Bradley: Piers, what I am interested in is making sure that we have the right resources, the right powers and the right training and capabilities. I am assured by the police that

This dismal, unnecessary election, conducted between the scream of police sirens and the murders of civilians, will be remembered for one thing only: the dementia tax. In years to come, political pros will shake their heads at the naivety of Theresa May. She appeared invincible, they will say. All she had to do was to keep quiet, turn up and she would win a landslide victory. Then she faced one of the great questions of the day. Everyone says they want politicians to do that. Who has not exclaimed that they must stop listening to focus groups and be brave? May was, and see how she has suffered. The PM

  After the 9/11 attacks, Tony Blair traced the jihadi menace to the problem of ungoverned spaces, like Afghanistan. In her speech after the London Bridge attacks today, Theresa May used similar language to describe cyberspace. “We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed,” she said. “Yet that is precisely what the internet and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide”. What could she have in mind? Not the dark web: that’s notorious but it’s beyond the (current) ability of government to regulate or remedy. I suspect that the “big companies” she has in mind will be the likes of Facebook, Google, Skype and Apple etc:

For the second time in this election, political campaigning is suspended because of a terrorist attack. Given the volume of terrorist attacks—three in the last three months and five other plots disrupted—you might think that the issue would have dominated the campaign. But it hasn’t. Until Theresa May’s statement today talking about how there has been too much tolerance for extremism, there has been remarkably little discussion about how this country should deal with this problem. Now, you can say that we shouldn’t allow the terrorists to set the agenda. But I fear that the main reason for the absence of debate is that no one is quite sure what

Until last night, I always felt uncomfortable seeing police with guns on the UK’s streets. It’s just not very British, I used to think. But after I had the misfortune to be on London Bridge in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack, I’ve changed my mind. I was in an Uber with my wife heading south over the Thames. We saw one victim on the pavement, another in the road; the driver pointed out yet another up ahead. Soon people started running across from the Borough Market end of the bridge talking about ‘stabbings’. A black cab driver shouted at us: ‘It’s Westminster all over again.’ Then there was a