I am reluctant to suggest this but it does seem like this is TM's Falkland's moment
That’s about the 17th time you’ve called that this year!! :-)
Today’s events have far more significance for Labour than for Mrs May. The measures announced are not going to cause much of a problem for Putin and do nothing to discomfit the oligarchs that surround him. The UK is in a weak position, unfortunately.
Poor Big G is desperate for us all to look lovingly at our dear leader through his coloured glasses...
Granted she is playing the politics of all this quite well, but seriously that is all she is doing. We need to go much further of course, but May's natural caution will stop it. There is no way we should be participating in the World Cup in a country sponsoring terrorism, murder led by criminals and thieves.
But at the end of the day, her campaigning skills are utterly atrocious..Russia or no Russia.. and based purely on that she will not lead the Tories into another election...
Hi Tyson - I am not desperate for you to look lovingly at TM, just to accept she is playing this well and trouncing Corbyn
She is not trouncing Corbyn, he is trouncing himself to the embarrassment of the majority of his party's MPs.
Good point but she did in her response to his response
It's the recklessness of the Russian actions that is of greatest concern. If say the courier (there very likely was one) damaged the container for the substance on something like a plane or a train you could be talking about dozens of deaths.
Apparently these substances are possible to be transported as two (mostly) harmless substances, they only become lethal when combined.
I'm getting nervous here. We know that Jezza and Vlad are good muckers. Perhaps Vlad has secretly told Jezza that Russia genuinely wasn't behind it. Jezza has taken this line so that when it comes out that Russia is in the clear he will look like a statesman while Theresa will look like a warmongering nincompoop. Vlad would be that devious. Is there any other explanation?
Yes - Corbyn is a closet Putinist
That is ridiculous. Putin is a gangster plain and simple.
Trump isn't a gangster but you can see the mutual attraction with Putin. Both are rich dishonest narcissistic authoritarians with no respect for law. Corbyn couldn't be more different. Does anyone seriously think that Corbyn admires or supports Putin in any way
Is Corbyn for real - I accept that I do not support him but today he is again being taken to the cleaners by TM
on the NHS....
This is akin to last night's Man Utd performance
I had it more akin to Spurs v Juventus.
We scored, had triple the number of shots and double the number of shots on target than Juve... I think Man U's performance closer to the 'absolute boy' today (tm St Hodges)
Six times, we're going to win it six times in Kiev this May.
I'm getting nervous here. We know that Jezza and Vlad are good muckers. Perhaps Vlad has secretly told Jezza that Russia genuinely wasn't behind it. Jezza has taken this line so that when it comes out that Russia is in the clear he will look like a statesman while Theresa will look like a warmongering nincompoop. Vlad would be that devious. Is there any other explanation?
Yes - Corbyn is a closet Putinist
That is ridiculous. Putin is a gangster plain and simple.
Trump isn't a gangster but you can see the mutual attraction with Putin. Both are rich dishonest narcissistic authoritarians with no respect for law. Corbyn couldn't be more different. Does anyone seriously think that Corbyn admires or supports Putin in any way
In 2014 Stop the War Coalition published a piece arguing that "if we have to pick a side" in the Ukraine conflict we should side with Russia. The group's Chair at the time was Jeremy Corbyn.
Poor Big G is desperate for us all to look lovingly at our dear leader through his coloured glasses...
Granted she is playing the politics of all this quite well, but seriously that is all she is doing. We need to go much further of course, but May's natural caution will stop it. There is no way we should be participating in the World Cup in a country sponsoring terrorism, murder led by criminals and thieves.
But at the end of the day, her campaigning skills are utterly atrocious..Russia or no Russia.. and based purely on that she will not lead the Tories into another election...
Hi Tyson - I am not desperate for you to look lovingly at TM, just to accept she is playing this well and trouncing Corbyn
Is her purpose to look after the interests of British citizens and other residents here? Or is it to trounce Corbyn?
I would help very much if the Government did the former, Mr Wales. You seem more interested in the latter.
It would probably help the country if Mrs May said what she meant, and meant what she said. However, her track record on speaking clearly and honestly has been deplorable. She is letting the country down. And so are the Conservative loyalists who are keeping her in place.
Is Corbyn for real - I accept that I do not support him but today he is again being taken to the cleaners by TM
on the NHS....
This is akin to last night's Man Utd performance
I had it more akin to Spurs v Juventus.
We scored, had triple the number of shots and double the number of shots on target than Juve... I think Man U's performance closer to the 'absolute boy' today (tm St Hodges)
Six times, we're going to win it six times in Kiev this May.
(I hope)
If we make the final I'm going to be in Kiev
I was in Istanbul and Athens.
Amazing night when we staged the greatest comeback since Lazarus.
As for Jeremy Corbyn, why is anyone surprised at his response?
Quite. He has form on matters like this.
I recall he was unsupportive of a former Prime Minister who assured the nation that it was right to declare war on Iraq because it was HIGHLY LIKELY that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not at all surprised he is raising questions about evidence.
The evidence is slightly stronger, even if some is circumstantial.
It appears undisputed that nerve agent was deployed. It appears undisputed that nerve agent was deployed in Salisbury, UK Which nation had a grudge against the attacked individual, that we know of?
If only Russia was in the single market and rules of origin applied, it would be so easy.
I would not be a shocked to find the nerve agent is closely related some used in Syria recently.
What I think is that there has been a surprising amount of anger and hostility about the way that Putin and his thugs have been behaving for some considerable time and that events in Salisbury have brought that anger to a boil. The questions to May are ranging very far and wide and are by no means restricted to this attempted murder.
It's the recklessness of the Russian actions that is of greatest concern. If say the courier (there very likely was one) damaged the container for the substance on something like a plane or a train you could be talking about dozens of deaths.
Apparently these substances are possible to be transported as two (mostly) harmless substances, they only become lethal when combined.
In some cases, although I'm not convinced Russia was all that concerned about collateral damage, and it certainly wasn't the case with the Polonium.
Is Corbyn for real - I accept that I do not support him but today he is again being taken to the cleaners by TM
on the NHS....
This is akin to last night's Man Utd performance
I had it more akin to Spurs v Juventus.
We scored, had triple the number of shots and double the number of shots on target than Juve... I think Man U's performance closer to the 'absolute boy' today (tm St Hodges)
Six times, we're going to win it six times in Kiev this May.
(I hope)
If we make the final I'm going to be in Kiev
I was in Istanbul and Athens.
Amazing night when we staged the greatest comeback since Lazarus.
It should not be "Kyiv" - Kiev ultimately being derived from its name under Russian occupation...!
Poor Big G is desperate for us all to look lovingly at our dear leader through his coloured glasses...
Granted she is playing the politics of all this quite well, but seriously that is all she is doing. We need to go much further of course, but May's natural caution will stop it. There is no way we should be participating in the World Cup in a country sponsoring terrorism, murder led by criminals and thieves.
But at the end of the day, her campaigning skills are utterly atrocious..Russia or no Russia.. and based purely on that she will not lead the Tories into another election...
Hi Tyson - I am not desperate for you to look lovingly at TM, just to accept she is playing this well and trouncing Corbyn
Is her purpose to look after the interests of British citizens and other residents here? Or is it to trounce Corbyn?
I would help very much if the Government did the former, Mr Wales. You seem more interested in the latter.
It would probably help the country if Mrs May said what she meant, and meant what she said. However, her track record on speaking clearly and honestly has been deplorable. She is letting the country down. And so are the Conservative loyalists who are keeping her in place.
You mean she is taking us out of the EU much to your dislike
Isn’t Corbyn a Privy Councillor? And wouldn’t intelligence about what has happened and about possible secret retaliatory measures be shared with the Opposition on Privy Council terms? Normally?
But one of Corbyn's closest advisors is a certain Seamus Milne, who has met with Putin, admires him and has spoken at rallies with him in his support even after the attacks on the Ukraine. So would the intelligence services really want to share intelligence - which may even involve action by British agents inside Russia now - with someone close to and advised by such a man? Could they really be confident that sensitive intelligence would not be leaked or provided to the Russians?
And imagine if such an attack happened and the PM was Corbyn? How can we be sure that he would authorise the relevant agencies to take all necessary steps to protect British citizens here? He may say the right things (about the attack being appalling) but would he take all necessary action to defend British citizens?
This seems to be a far more important aspect to and criticism of Corbyn’s reaction than the outrage at him pointing out the donations received by the Tories from Russians, which may have been crude but have a point which the Tories would do well to consider. Given the state of Russia, it is very very difficult to distinguish between wealth made legitimately and that which isn’t. Whether it is legal to receive those Russian donations is not really the point. The question the Tories should have been asking themselves - and should now be asking - is whether it is wise.
Is Corbyn for real - I accept that I do not support him but today he is again being taken to the cleaners by TM
on the NHS....
This is akin to last night's Man Utd performance
I had it more akin to Spurs v Juventus.
We scored, had triple the number of shots and double the number of shots on target than Juve... I think Man U's performance closer to the 'absolute boy' today (tm St Hodges)
Six times, we're going to win it six times in Kiev this May.
(I hope)
If we make the final I'm going to be in Kiev
I was in Istanbul and Athens.
Amazing night when we staged the greatest comeback since Lazarus.
It should not be "Kyiv" - Kiev ultimately being derived from its name under Russian occupation...!
I am reluctant to suggest this but it does seem like this is TM's Falkland's moment
That’s about the 17th time you’ve called that this year!! :-)
Today’s events have far more significance for Labour than for Mrs May. The measures announced are not going to cause much of a problem for Putin and do nothing to discomfit the oligarchs that surround him. The UK is in a weak position, unfortunately.
Poor Big G is desperate for us all to look lovingly at our dear leader through his coloured glasses...
Granted she is playing the politics of all this quite well, but seriously that is all she is doing. We need to go much further of course, but May's natural caution will stop it. There is no way we should be participating in the World Cup in a country sponsoring terrorism, murder led by criminals and thieves.
But at the end of the day, her campaigning skills are utterly atrocious..Russia or no Russia.. and based purely on that she will not lead the Tories into another election...
Hi Tyson - I am not desperate for you to look lovingly at TM, just to accept she is playing this well and trouncing Corbyn
She is not trouncing Corbyn, he is trouncing himself to the embarrassment of the majority of his party's MPs.
Good point but she did in her response to his response
Missed that as was in the Politics Today studio. Its tricky because we don't want to look divided. I think the criticism of Corbyn can largely be left to the Labour back benchers.
Is Corbyn for real - I accept that I do not support him but today he is again being taken to the cleaners by TM
on the NHS....
This is akin to last night's Man Utd performance
I had it more akin to Spurs v Juventus.
We scored, had triple the number of shots and double the number of shots on target than Juve... I think Man U's performance closer to the 'absolute boy' today (tm St Hodges)
Six times, we're going to win it six times in Kiev this May.
(I hope)
If we make the final I'm going to be in Kiev
I was in Istanbul and Athens.
Amazing night when we staged the greatest comeback since Lazarus.
It should not be "Kyiv" - Kiev ultimately being derived from its name under Russian occupation...!
Kyiv it is.
I mean, "Should it not..." not "It should not..." of course
Isn’t Corbyn a Privy Councillor? And wouldn’t intelligence about what has happened and about possible secret retaliatory measures be shared with the Opposition on Privy Council terms? Normally?
But one of Corbyn's closest advisors is a certain Seamus Milne, who has met with Putin, admires him and has spoken at rallies with him in his support even after the attacks on the Ukraine. So would the intelligence services really want to share intelligence - which may even involve action by British agents inside Russia now - with someone close to and advised by such a man? Could they really be confident that sensitive intelligence would not be leaked or provided to the Russians?
And imagine if such an attack happened and the PM was Corbyn? How can we be sure that he would authorise the relevant agencies to take all necessary steps to protect British citizens here? He may say the right things (about the attack being appalling) but would he take all necessary action to defend British citizens?
This seems to be a far more important aspect to and criticism of Corbyn’s reaction than the outrage at him pointing out the donations received by the Tories from Russians, which may have been crude but have a point which the Tories would do well to consider. Given the state of Russia, it is very very difficult to distinguish between wealth made legitimately and that which isn’t. Whether it is legal to receive those Russian donations is not really the point. The question the Tories should have been asking themeselves - and should now be asking - is whether it is wise.
As murky as this latest poisoning, in fact. That will also I imagine take 30 years to decipher and name names.
If Corbyn becomes PM with a majority of 5-10, the likes of Liz Kendall or Chris Leslie will have a veto. So he's unlikely to 'go too far' as you put it. If he has no majority, there'd be a Lib/Lab/Green/PC pact or similar which would be even more consensual. So he's even less likely to 'go too far'.
I am reluctant to suggest this but it does seem like this is TM's Falkland's moment
That’s about the 17th time you’ve called that this year!! :-)
Today’s events have far more significance for Labour than for Mrs May. The measures announced are not going to cause much of a problem for Putin and do nothing to discomfit the oligarchs that surround him. The UK is in a weak position, unfortunately.
Poor Big G is desperate for us all to look lovingly at our dear leader through his coloured glasses...
Granted she is playing the politics of all this quite well, but seriously that is all she is doing. We need to go much further of course, but May's natural caution will stop it. There is no way we should be participating in the World Cup in a country sponsoring terrorism, murder led by criminals and thieves.
But at the end of the day, her campaigning skills are utterly atrocious..Russia or no Russia.. and based purely on that she will not lead the Tories into another election...
Hi Tyson - I am not desperate for you to look lovingly at TM, just to accept she is playing this well and trouncing Corbyn
She is not trouncing Corbyn, he is trouncing himself to the embarrassment of the majority of his party's MPs.
Good point but she did in her response to his response
Missed that as was in the Politics Today studio. Its tricky because we don't want to look divided. I think the criticism of Corbyn can largely be left to the Labour back benchers.
Her response to Corbyn opened the door to the fusilage of criticism to his stance from labour mps
As for Jeremy Corbyn, why is anyone surprised at his response?
Quite. He has form on matters like this.
I recall he was unsupportive of a former Prime Minister who assured the nation that it was right to declare war on Iraq because it was HIGHLY LIKELY that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not at all surprised he is raising questions about evidence.
Do you think that if WMD had been found Corbyn would have changed his mind and supported the war?
Or isn’t it much more likely that he was against any action which would have involved him being on the side of the Americans, regardless of the WMD question?
After all, he was against any action being taken to help the Yazidis being slaughtered by IS or any action to help the poor Muslims of Kosovo being slaughtered by the Serbs. Corbyn’s view is easy to discern: find the side the Americans are on and he’s on the opposing side. The WMD were a McGuffin as far as Corbyn and his ilk were concerned.
There's a big difference between dodgy intelligence about weapons held by Saddam Hussein in Iraq and analysis of a weapon that has actually been used in the UK.
Isn’t Corbyn a Privy Councillor? And wouldn’t intelligence about what has happened and about possible secret retaliatory measures be shared with the Opposition on Privy Council terms? Normally?
But one of Corbyn's closest advisors is a certain Seamus Milne, who has met with Putin, admires him and has spoken at rallies with him in his support even after the attacks on the Ukraine. So would the intelligence services really want to share intelligence - which may even involve action by British agents inside Russia now - with someone close to and advised by such a man? Could they really be confident that sensitive intelligence would not be leaked or provided to the Russians?
And imagine if such an attack happened and the PM was Corbyn? How can we be sure that he would authorise the relevant agencies to take all necessary steps to protect British citizens here? He may say the right things (about the attack being appalling) but would he take all necessary action to defend British citizens?
This seems to be a far more important aspect to and criticism of Corbyn’s reaction than the outrage at him pointing out the donations received by the Tories from Russians, which may have been crude but have a point which the Tories would do well to consider. Given the state of Russia, it is very very difficult to distinguish between wealth made legitimately and that which isn’t. Whether it is legal to receive those Russian donations is not really the point. The question the Tories should have been asking themselves - and should now be asking - is whether it is wise.
To be honest if the IRA didn’t cause Corbyn problems then this Russia stuff won’t either.
Not sure about that - his support for IRA murderers was too long ago to be seen as relevant to some people, but this is attempted murder on British soil today.
As for Jeremy Corbyn, why is anyone surprised at his response?
Quite. He has form on matters like this.
I recall he was unsupportive of a former Prime Minister who assured the nation that it was right to declare war on Iraq because it was HIGHLY LIKELY that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not at all surprised he is raising questions about evidence.
And the bombing of Syria....he was called out too.
Corbyn will never rattle a sabre for political point scoring....and his judgement on foreign policy is a lot better than any Tory I can think of....,
As for Jeremy Corbyn, why is anyone surprised at his response?
Quite. He has form on matters like this.
I recall he was unsupportive of a former Prime Minister who assured the nation that it was right to declare war on Iraq because it was HIGHLY LIKELY that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not at all surprised he is raising questions about evidence.
And the bombing of Syria....he was called out too.
Corbyn will never rattle a sabre for political point scoring....and his judgement on foreign policy is a lot better than any Tory I can think of....,
Mr. Eagles, that was my thinking a few days ago. But the IRA, to many, is in the dim and distant past, whereas the nerve agent situation is current and developing.
And so far Corbyn's response has been to condemn the British, rather than the Russian, Government.
I doubt it'll happen, but it'd be very good if Labour MPs could finally winkle Corbyn out.
To be honest if the IRA didn’t cause Corbyn problems then this Russia stuff won’t either.
The IRA was then, and it was its then-ness that detoxified it. This is now. Corbyn has form (admirably) for sticking to his guns when it is politically inexpedient (e.g. not wavering on trident last GE campaign); that may be his undoing.
Isn’t Corbyn a Privy Councillor? And wouldn’t intelligence about what has happened and about possible secret retaliatory measures be shared with the Opposition on Privy Council terms? Normally?
But one of Corbyn's closest advisors is a certain Seamus Milne, who has met with Putin, admires him and has spoken at rallies with him in his support even after the attacks on the Ukraine. So would the intelligence services really want to share intelligence - which may even involve action by British agents inside Russia now - with someone close to and advised by such a man? Could they really be confident that sensitive intelligence would not be leaked or provided to the Russians?
And imagine if such an attack happened and the PM was Corbyn? How can we be sure that he would authorise the relevant agencies to take all necessary steps to protect British citizens here? He may say the right things (about the attack being appalling) but would he take all necessary action to defend British citizens?
This seems to be a far more important aspect to and criticism of Corbyn’s reaction than the outrage at him pointing out the donations received by the Tories from Russians, which may have been crude but have a point which the Tories would do well to consider. Given the state of Russia, it is very very difficult to distinguish between wealth made legitimately and that which isn’t. Whether it is legal to receive those Russian donations is not really the point. The question the Tories should have been asking themselves - and should now be asking - is whether it is wise.
If Corbyn becomes PM, Russia has won.
Following on from its successes with Brexit and Trump.
On the plus side, for me, this does vindicate my position of voting Conservative at the next election, under practically all circumstances, if Corbyn remains in place. Better a thousand years of May than five of Corbyn.
Mr. Eagles, that was my thinking a few days ago. But the IRA, to many, is in the dim and distant past, whereas the nerve agent situation is current and developing.
And so far Corbyn's response has been to condemn the British, rather than the Russian, Government.
I doubt it'll happen, but it'd be very good if Labour MPs could finally winkle Corbyn out.
Even better if they couldn't winkle him out, but only just couldn't.
I thought the diplomatic expulsions were not that suprising. No nuclear war or cyber attack then!
From a betting perspective, the most significant consequence of today's events is that it is likely to resume the civil war in the labour party.
Corbyn's ambivalence to what appears to be a direct Russian provocation is likely to alienate the PLP and end the post GE 2017 ceasefire. But, his appeasing views on Russia might turn out to be suprisingly popular with the wider population.
Many people would rather opt for a strategy of trying to make the problem go away by appeasing the aggressor, however historically flawed that is.
As for Jeremy Corbyn, why is anyone surprised at his response?
Quite. He has form on matters like this.
I recall he was unsupportive of a former Prime Minister who assured the nation that it was right to declare war on Iraq because it was HIGHLY LIKELY that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not at all surprised he is raising questions about evidence.
And the bombing of Syria....he was called out too.
Corbyn will never rattle a sabre for political point scoring....and his judgement on foreign policy is a lot better than any Tory I can think of....,
On the wider ramifications, I think that the international response is going to be very supportive of the UK. This is not because of the attempted murder as such - which, in the overall scheme of international affairs, is minor - but because of the chemical weapons angle. Countries far beyond Britain are going to be worried about whether their citizens might get caught up in whatever vengeful murders Putin decides to do next, and about the implications for global non-proliferation. See the NATO statement at 14:19:
As for Jeremy Corbyn, why is anyone surprised at his response?
Quite. He has form on matters like this.
I recall he was unsupportive of a former Prime Minister who assured the nation that it was right to declare war on Iraq because it was HIGHLY LIKELY that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not at all surprised he is raising questions about evidence.
And the bombing of Syria....he was called out too.
Corbyn will never rattle a sabre for political point scoring....and his judgement on foreign policy is a lot better than any Tory I can think of....,
Foreign policy???
Support for Hamas? Hezbollah? Chavez?
That isn't good judgement.
Corbyn backed the Iranians AFTER they sent the Revolutionary Guard to slaughter democracy protesters. He opposed action against Milosevic during the Bosnian genocide.
I thought the diplomatic expulsions were not that suprising. No nuclear war or cyber attack then!
From a betting perspective, the most significant consequence of today's events is that it is likely to resume the civil war in the labour party.
Corbyn's ambivalence to what appears to be a direct Russian provocation is likely to alienate the PLP and end the post GE 2017 ceasefire. But, his appeasing views on Russia might turn out to be suprisingly popular with the wider population.
Many people would rather opt for a strategy of trying to make the problem go away by appeasing the aggressor, however historically flawed that is.
They do when the aggression is against far away countries of which we know little, not necessarily against innocent citizens in Salisbury. I am personally disgusted by the "whatever, he was a Russian traitor" school of thought, but that's immaterial anyway as he also got one of our policemen.
As for Jeremy Corbyn, why is anyone surprised at his response?
Quite. He has form on matters like this.
I recall he was unsupportive of a former Prime Minister who assured the nation that it was right to declare war on Iraq because it was HIGHLY LIKELY that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not at all surprised he is raising questions about evidence.
And the bombing of Syria....he was called out too.
Corbyn will never rattle a sabre for political point scoring....and his judgement on foreign policy is a lot better than any Tory I can think of....,
Foreign policy???
Support for Hamas? Hezbollah? Chavez?
That isn't good judgement.
If Corbyn is not a surrogate of Putin he is an appeaser. A latter day Neville Chamberlain!
If Mrs May had waited a year to call the GE, she could have framed it as a referendum against the Russian aggressor. A vote for her would be patriotic and a vote for Corbyn would be a vote for Putin!
... With regard to today's announcement, it strikes me that the government need to articulate a convincing strategy to take this 'threat from Russia' on, or else it is going to become impossible to win over a very sceptical population. All this stuff looks to many people like hysteria, however well founded it may be.
Nothing the government has done in relation to Putin seems to have worked. Everything has backfired. Sanctions haven't worked. He just gets more and more powerful.
The idea of getting rid of Putin has failed. This will largely be seen as a problem of the current governments own making, post 2010, although obviously it goes much further back than that.
Furthermore, at the same time, Cameron was very quick to do deals with China, in some cases in very sensitive areas of the economy, which were to my mind astonishingly poorly thought through. There are any number of ways in which China can become hostile in the future. What is the difference between China and Russia? Honestly? This isn't about freedom and democracy, its about 8 years of foreign policy failure.
Hence Corbyn the contrarian is going to get a hearing yet again.
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
Personally I would strip Corbyn of his Privy Council status and thus cut him off from access to any sensitive material. I accept that this is not a practical option - but I do not believe that he and his immediate circle cannot be trusted with it.
The 'questions' being raised by his spokesman are offensive. They have rightly been condemned.
May says Corbyn's spokesman's Iraq/Salisbury WMD comparison 'wrong and outrageous'
Caroline Johnson, a Conservative, says Corbyn’s spokesman made a comparison between this incident and Iraq. (See 2.04pm.) But in Iraq no weapons of mass destruction were found, she says. By contrast, she says, in Salisbury nerve agent has been found and three people are in hospital.
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
As I said yesterday, the Russian response seems to be moving towards "it might have been some bad Ukrainian boys with some left over Soviet gloop". They are parroting the Russian line almost word for word.
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
Difficult to disagree with that. But we were warned.
By the way, I think May’s response is frankly insufficient. Too cautious by half.
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
A fatuous argument that ignores or simply doesn't remember the Litvinenko murder.
Some people (you included) really are making themselves look very stupid trying to tie this to Brexit.
As I said yesterday, the Russian response seems to be moving towards "it might have been some bad Ukrainian boys with some left over Soviet gloop". They are parroting the Russian line almost word for word.
The breakup of the Soviet Union was 27 years ago. i'm sure it's been hanging around and fine and dandy to use after all that time....
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
CNN - fairly consistent with their politics
Are you quoting Trump?
Two more quotes from the article: "The leader of the opposition, Labour's Jeremy Corbyn, suggested on Monday that dialogue with Russia was the best response to its alleged use of chemical weapons on British soil."
"Picking on its politically weakest power -- the UK -- at a time of crisis is one way of showing Russian resurgence."
As I said yesterday, the Russian response seems to be moving towards "it might have been some bad Ukrainian boys with some left over Soviet gloop". They are parroting the Russian line almost word for word.
I wonder what the 'shelf life' is of Nerve Agents, and the conditions required for long term storage?
As I said yesterday, the Russian response seems to be moving towards "it might have been some bad Ukrainian boys with some left over Soviet gloop". They are parroting the Russian line almost word for word.
The breakup of the Soviet Union was 27 years ago. i'm sure it's been hanging around and fine and dandy to use after all that time....
Yes precisely - what is going to worry our allies above all is that the implication is that Russia is still producing this stuff, and is prepared to use it.
I thought the diplomatic expulsions were not that suprising. No nuclear war or cyber attack then!
From a betting perspective, the most significant consequence of today's events is that it is likely to resume the civil war in the labour party.
Corbyn's ambivalence to what appears to be a direct Russian provocation is likely to alienate the PLP and end the post GE 2017 ceasefire. But, his appeasing views on Russia might turn out to be suprisingly popular with the wider population.
Many people would rather opt for a strategy of trying to make the problem go away by appeasing the aggressor, however historically flawed that is.
They do when the aggression is against far away countries of which we know little, not necessarily against innocent citizens in Salisbury. I am personally disgusted by the "whatever, he was a Russian traitor" school of thought, but that's immaterial anyway as he also got one of our policemen.
With respect, I don't agree. Of course, I am also disgusted by the "whatever he was a Russian traitor" school of thought.
But the rise of domestic terrorism has not resulted in a notable increase in resolve for a ground war in Syria, or Libya, or anywhere else. People just want to make the problem to go away.
(This does give me my chance to argue that we've either already had WW3 or we've not yet had WW2).
Am I right in thinking that in the latter case, you argue that WWI was a European civil war, and WWII was therefore WWI?
What about the former?
Yes. I'd argue that either:
- A 'world war' really has to be a global conflict, in which case there's only ever been one: 1937-45 (or 1941-45, if you prefer the actual global period).
or
- A 'world war' is one that involves the majority of the global powers fighting to the effective limits of their military and financial capacity (and those limits have to be understood in their historical contexts), even if the area within which the fighting takes place is more localised. On that basis, I'd argue that there've been at least four, with the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic Wars forming one, and the Seven Years War being another, though you can potentially make arguments for others too.
Interesting...(from Guardian liveblog) - May building bridges with Labour back benches
Mark Francois, a Conservative, says May’s statement “in some ways had flashes of the iron lady” about it. He describes Corbyn as “a CND-wearing apologist for the Russian state”.
May points out that many Labour MPs have backed what she said.
Bloomberg reporting - Italy's centre right and 5 Star agree to talks and a government from these talks would spook the financial markets and the EU over their spending plans and Euroscepticism
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
CNN - fairly consistent with their politics
Are you quoting Trump?
Two more quotes from the article: "The leader of the opposition, Labour's Jeremy Corbyn, suggested on Monday that dialogue with Russia was the best response to its alleged use of chemical weapons on British soil."
"Picking on its politically weakest power -- the UK -- at a time of crisis is one way of showing Russian resurgence."
I have nothing to do with Trump in any way - he is a disaster
Bloomberg reporting - Italy's centre right and 5 Star agree to talks and a government from these talks would spook the financial markets and the EU over their spending plans and Euroscepticism
Is that the centre right as in the block of parties or Forza ? I'd describe Liga as more right than centre-right, thought Tajani is the leader of the biggest party within the block.
The view from CNN on 'why Britain and why now' "Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters. The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
This seems to have produced a flurry of snowflakes in advance of the weekend. It's obvious (and honest Leavers would admit that Brexit has some downsides and this is one of them). But it appears that some Leavers can't handle the truth.
Comments
Trump isn't a gangster but you can see the mutual attraction with Putin. Both are rich dishonest narcissistic authoritarians with no respect for law. Corbyn couldn't be more different. Does anyone seriously think that Corbyn admires or supports Putin in any way
@JBickertonUK
In 2014 Stop the War Coalition published a piece arguing that "if we have to pick a side" in the Ukraine conflict we should side with Russia. The group's Chair at the time was Jeremy Corbyn.
YES
Is her purpose to look after the interests of British citizens and other residents here? Or is it to trounce Corbyn?
I would help very much if the Government did the former, Mr Wales. You seem more interested in the latter.
It would probably help the country if Mrs May said what she meant, and meant what she said. However, her track record on speaking clearly and honestly has been deplorable. She is letting the country down. And so are the Conservative loyalists who are keeping her in place.
Amazing night when we staged the greatest comeback since Lazarus.
It appears undisputed that nerve agent was deployed.
It appears undisputed that nerve agent was deployed in Salisbury, UK
Which nation had a grudge against the attacked individual, that we know of?
If only Russia was in the single market and rules of origin applied, it would be so easy.
I would not be a shocked to find the nerve agent is closely related some used in Syria recently.
I would help very much if the Government did the former, Mr Wales. You seem more interested in the latter.
It would probably help the country if Mrs May said what she meant, and meant what she said. However, her track record on speaking clearly and honestly has been deplorable. She is letting the country down. And so are the Conservative loyalists who are keeping her in place.
You mean she is taking us out of the EU much to your dislike
Isn’t Corbyn a Privy Councillor? And wouldn’t intelligence about what has happened and about possible secret retaliatory measures be shared with the Opposition on Privy Council terms? Normally?
But one of Corbyn's closest advisors is a certain Seamus Milne, who has met with Putin, admires him and has spoken at rallies with him in his support even after the attacks on the Ukraine. So would the intelligence services really want to share intelligence - which may even involve action by British agents inside Russia now - with someone close to and advised by such a man? Could they really be confident that sensitive intelligence would not be leaked or provided to the Russians?
And imagine if such an attack happened and the PM was Corbyn? How can we be sure that he would authorise the relevant agencies to take all necessary steps to protect British citizens here? He may say the right things (about the attack being appalling) but would he take all necessary action to defend British citizens?
This seems to be a far more important aspect to and criticism of Corbyn’s reaction than the outrage at him pointing out the donations received by the Tories from Russians, which may have been crude but have a point which the Tories would do well to consider. Given the state of Russia, it is very very difficult to distinguish between wealth made legitimately and that which isn’t. Whether it is legal to receive those Russian donations is not really the point. The question the Tories should have been asking themselves - and should now be asking - is whether it is wise.
WE KNOW THE F**KING NERVE AGENT EXISTED AND WAS USED
Corbyns either being thick, or a stooge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4789060.stm
As murky as this latest poisoning, in fact. That will also I imagine take 30 years to decipher and name names.
If Corbyn becomes PM with a majority of 5-10, the likes of Liz Kendall or Chris Leslie will have a veto. So he's unlikely to 'go too far' as you put it. If he has no majority, there'd be a Lib/Lab/Green/PC pact or similar which would be even more consensual. So he's even less likely to 'go too far'.
Mr. Voter, assuming the disloyal MPs aren't replaced by ones that realise we've always been at war with Eurasia.
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/73484077675712512
Pro-democracy protests in Russia? Whaddabout protests in the UK?
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/150575633448185856
And Russia 'has history' of murdering former spies on British soil.....but he doesn't mention that.....
Or isn’t it much more likely that he was against any action which would have involved him being on the side of the Americans, regardless of the WMD question?
After all, he was against any action being taken to help the Yazidis being slaughtered by IS or any action to help the poor Muslims of Kosovo being slaughtered by the Serbs. Corbyn’s view is easy to discern: find the side the Americans are on and he’s on the opposing side. The WMD were a McGuffin as far as Corbyn and his ilk were concerned.
If Corbyn becomes PM, Russia has won.
Corbyn will never rattle a sabre for political point scoring....and his judgement on foreign policy is a lot better than any Tory I can think of....,
Support for Hamas? Hezbollah? Chavez?
That isn't good judgement.
And so far Corbyn's response has been to condemn the British, rather than the Russian, Government.
I doubt it'll happen, but it'd be very good if Labour MPs could finally winkle Corbyn out.
But the IRA trying to murder people happened years ago. The Russians are doing it now.
And the issue of whether Corbyn would take action to protect British citizens in the here and now is a live one. So it may be different.
From a betting perspective, the most significant consequence of today's events is that it is likely to resume the civil war in the labour party.
Corbyn's ambivalence to what appears to be a direct Russian provocation is likely to alienate the PLP and end the post GE 2017 ceasefire. But, his appeasing views on Russia might turn out to be suprisingly popular with the wider population.
Many people would rather opt for a strategy of trying to make the problem go away by appeasing the aggressor, however historically flawed that is.
@zerohedge
ITALY'S SALVINI SAYS EURO IS `A GERMAN CURRENCY'
ITALY'S SALVINI: EURO IS A WRONG CURRENCY, SHLD BE REVIEWED
There could be a reasonable argument for saying the 7 Years War was the first world war as it was fought on 5 continents.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/14/pmqs-may-corbyn-russia-spy-poisoning-uk-it-will-face-equal-reaction-if-may-punishes-it-for-salisbury-spy-attack-politics-live
Blair will never be forgiven, though Campbell seems to have wrangled his way back into polite society.
Can I just say, as a Remainer, very saddened to see the death of Jim Bowen. If it wasn’t for Brexit, look what we could have won.
If Mrs May had waited a year to call the GE, she could have framed it as a referendum against the Russian aggressor. A vote for her would be patriotic and a vote for Corbyn would be a vote for Putin!
Nothing the government has done in relation to Putin seems to have worked. Everything has backfired. Sanctions haven't worked. He just gets more and more powerful.
The idea of getting rid of Putin has failed. This will largely be seen as a problem of the current governments own making, post 2010, although obviously it goes much further back than that.
Furthermore, at the same time, Cameron was very quick to do deals with China, in some cases in very sensitive areas of the economy, which were to my mind astonishingly poorly thought through. There are any number of ways in which China can become hostile in the future. What is the difference between China and Russia? Honestly? This isn't about freedom and democracy, its about 8 years of foreign policy failure.
Hence Corbyn the contrarian is going to get a hearing yet again.
Interesting times.
"Britain is currently weak on the world stage. While it is hard to admit this, virtually every relationship it has is in tatters.
The internal knots of the ruling Conservative Party over the country's future after leaving the European Union have left it more or less incapable of effectively bargaining on one of the most important national issues since the end of World War II."
The 'questions' being raised by his spokesman are offensive. They have rightly been condemned.
Caroline Johnson, a Conservative, says Corbyn’s spokesman made a comparison between this incident and Iraq. (See 2.04pm.) But in Iraq no weapons of mass destruction were found, she says. By contrast, she says, in Salisbury nerve agent has been found and three people are in hospital.
May agrees. She says:
It is quite wrong and outrageous that the leader of the opposition’s spokesman has made the comments in relation to this that he has.
https://twitter.com/AndrewSparrow/status/973929820588568577
But we were warned.
By the way, I think May’s response is frankly insufficient. Too cautious by half.
Some people (you included) really are making themselves look very stupid trying to tie this to Brexit.
Two more quotes from the article:
"The leader of the opposition, Labour's Jeremy Corbyn, suggested on Monday that dialogue with Russia was the best response to its alleged use of chemical weapons on British soil."
"Picking on its politically weakest power -- the UK -- at a time of crisis is one way of showing Russian resurgence."
With respect, I don't agree. Of course, I am also disgusted by the "whatever he was a Russian traitor" school of thought.
But the rise of domestic terrorism has not resulted in a notable increase in resolve for a ground war in Syria, or Libya, or anywhere else.
People just want to make the problem to go away.
- A 'world war' really has to be a global conflict, in which case there's only ever been one: 1937-45 (or 1941-45, if you prefer the actual global period).
or
- A 'world war' is one that involves the majority of the global powers fighting to the effective limits of their military and financial capacity (and those limits have to be understood in their historical contexts), even if the area within which the fighting takes place is more localised. On that basis, I'd argue that there've been at least four, with the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic Wars forming one, and the Seven Years War being another, though you can potentially make arguments for others too.
Mark Francois, a Conservative, says May’s statement “in some ways had flashes of the iron lady” about it. He describes Corbyn as “a CND-wearing apologist for the Russian state”.
May points out that many Labour MPs have backed what she said.
Exactly the same as RT then, trying to suggest it was Ukraine. What a surprise.
I'd describe Liga as more right than centre-right, thought Tajani is the leader of the biggest party within the block.
Time to check security!