Manchester attack will not affect election, focus groups suggest

Swing voters do not think the Manchester terror attack will affect how they cast their ballot on 8 June but Theresa May’s response was seen generally as reassuring, according to focus groups in six seats.

Undecided voters in Hartlepool, Birmingham, Cambridge, Glasgow, Wells and Harrow were asked for their views on how the parties responded to the attack as part of a project by Britain Thinks, a political consultancy.

The bulk of voters said they did not believe it would change how they would vote, and many praised the temporary halt in campaigning by all parties.

However, the replies of a few voters suggested the events of the past week could have focused their minds on the question of who they believe will be the strongest leader at a time of crisis.

Laura, from Cambridge, a Labour-Lib Dem marginal, said the effect it would have was “probably none, although I did wonder if Jeremy Corbyn would be somewhat softer on tackling it than Theresa May”.

Jessica, in the same constituency, said: “I suppose I’ll take into consideration who is a stronger leader overall and who could stand strong and firm in the face of a horrendous terrorist attack in this country.”

Five out of six undecideds who replied in Labour-held Hartlepool, where Ukip came second in 2015, said the terror attack and the political response to it would make no difference to their voting. Carl said its effect would be “probably not much to be honest, [as] no matter who you were and what party it was a tragedy”.

Only one person, Stephanie, said her view could be shifted, saying: “If one of the parties (Jeremy Corbyn) use this attack as an excuse to put his views across about his campaign to better their chances then I will not be voting for that party.”

With May moving back into the role of stateswoman and prime minister rather than political campaigner, undecided voters tended to assess her response as strong and reassuring, although some raised concerns that more could have been done to stop the attack.

“She has shown compassion. But it is expected of the PM to do so,” said Anjalee, in Harrow West, a Labour-held seat targeted by the Conservatives.

Nathan in Birmingham Erdington, another Labour-Tory marginal, said: “She has done and said everything right. Condemning the US for their breach of trust regarding the investigation was really good to see, which sets her apart from previous prime ministers.”

However, some people raised concerns about policing and security. In Glasgow East, a seat lost by Labour to the Scottish National party in 2015, Kelly said: “I think Theresa May has done very well responding to the attack. I just feel that if the government had paid for more security to not let anyone one in without a ticket then the explosion could have been prevented.”

Two voters in Hartlepool had robust views that there should be a tougher approach to security. “They will not go against the politically correct mindset and will not want to look prejudiced against so-called minority religions,” said Ian. “In reality the government isn’t doing enough and is putting us all at risk allowing people to go to Iraq and Syria and then welcoming them back but putting them on a watchlist. Anyone on the list or anyone related to anyone on the list should be deported, or if they are from the UK they should be jailed.”

Also in Hartlepool, Eddie said: “It’s about time our so-called politicians should work to get her to put a stop to this. Anyone helping these killers should be deported and any mosque that backs the killers should be pulled down. What upsets me is that they knew about this person so why on earth did there not keep an eye on him or better still, deported him with his family.”

There was widespread feeling among the undecided voters that tackling terrorism should be a high political priority, but some also expressed a sense that there may be a limit to what politicians could achieve on this.

“Although this is classed as terrorism, I also feel it is just one senseless nutter who decided to do a terrible thing,” said Katie in Cambridge. “I do not think these random acts are always avoidable, unfortunately.”