Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

If May does something it’s perfect. If Corbyn does something it’s terrible. I think those are the rules. Good luck getting any sense out of people committed to playing such ridiculous games.

He wants to be our PM. Would it kill him to be on our side, just for once?

[katieakita]

So what anti British thing has Corbyn actually done, have not followed recent events

[Salisbury Fox]

2 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Probably not but equally what is the harm in giving the sample?  I can't see it affecting the outcome of our or any independent analysis of the stuff.

 

I'm not making excuses I'm trying to figure out why people find his response so repugnant.  Perhaps you can explain it.

Hypothetically if we gave them a sample and it was their nerve agent do you think they would admit to it or would we have another MH17 farce? I know we are in an era where nobody believes experts, but these things have a very specific signature which is pointing directly at Russia. These agents will be stored by the state and so should not go missing by accident.  The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming too.  In my opinion Corbyn knows full well that the evidence is stacked against Russia but is using this for political ends which is why many are giving him stick.  Whilst this might play well to his core vote, it continues to show how divisive he is and why he doesn't poll as high as he could against a weak Government.  In my opinion by taking the response we have it is us who are taking the initiative and time will tell how this pans out, but we couldn't leave it this time.

[Sharpe's Fox]

21 minutes ago, katieakita said:

So what anti British thing has Corbyn actually done, have not followed recent events

wanted to follow international law

[Salisbury Fox]

6 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

wanted to follow international law

TM is following international law

[Guest]

This is all very depressing isn't it?

How shit is our politics these days?

[Guest Kopfkino]

7 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Just seen a tweet claiming Corbyn doesn't believe there's proof that the nerve agent is linked to Russia which if true (from the Sun) is a 100% valid reason for being upset with the guy, but I haven't seen anybody mention that in here so it's clearly not what's sparked the angry reaction from a couple of posters above which I'm still a bit confused about.  If @Kopfkino or @Beechey could clarify what they're responding to I'd appreciate it because clearly I'm missing something.

 

I suppose I'm a bit late back to the party.

 

As far I see it, he has given the benefit of the doubt to the Russians rather than our own intelligence services (echoes of Trump). His own shadow foreign secretary tonight, in what seems a far better speech than his, said there's 'prima facie evidence' that it's Russia. That's something he could have done (he will have seen the same evidence as Thornbery and May) but no he refused the condemn Russia and refused to show the unity I'd expect on a national security issue. Then Seamus Milne comes along as his spokesperson to say well the security services have been wrong before. Literally unashamed giving the benefit of the doubt to the Russian government. And Iraq is clearly now the get out of jail free card for the conspiracists, despite the blatant differences here. Anyway let's be clear, we gave Russia the opportunity to explain events, to explain how it lost control of the nerve agent if it wasn't responsible and they didn't even try to. They have done nothing to offer any kind of believable counter-argument. And then Corbyn stands up, repeats the words of Sergey Lavrov almost to the letter (not missed by RT that the opposition leader is saying the same as the Kremlin, how joyed they are), refuses any kind of condemnation of the Russian state related to this act, decides to make some political point again and talks about 'robust dialogue' whatever the **** that means. All he needed to do was put the onus on Russia a bit. Please tell me how it is possible to trust him to lead the country. Which combined with his performance on Monday (truly woeful and shameful) it incenses me that he could ever get near being PM. I mean really what has to happen for him to come down on the UK's side. I suppose war with America might do it.

 

As an addition, a bloke called Craig Murray (some former ambassador) has managed to accuse Israel. Just knew it wouldn't be long til the Jooooooooos got the blame.

 

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

This is all very depressing isn't it?

How shit is our politics these days?

 

 

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

First of all thanks guys for taking the time to respond.

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

Because a foreign power has attempted to murder 2 British citizens and inadvertently could have killed a policeman  in this country with a weapon of mass destruction in the most conspicuous way and at a time when we should be presenting a united front Corbyn is trying to deflect blame from Putin and trying to score cheap points by making irrelevant comments about spending on diplomacy. He is an utter c**t.

I know you don't like Corbyn but I don't see anything in what I've seen of his words today that constitutes deflecting blame from Putin.  Again it's possible I've missed the crucial evidence.

 

3 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

I believe he asked may if she had responded to the Russian request for a sample, May ignored this.

 

Milne is very much in bed with the Kremlin he is very much Corbyns puppet master. Often defends Putin attended a propsganda event. Pedals the Russian line this man is incredibly dangerous.

 

https://leftfootforward.org/2015/03/projecting-the-kremlin-line/

 

Corbyn has never criticised the Russian regime in public, has appeared a number of times of Russia today. For a man happy to point out countries with questionable records (some he is correct to) obviously is political stance prevents this happening with Russia which is gine but just admit it! I would respect him a lot more if he was just honest and admitted he is a commie cvnt! 

He literally criticised the Russian regime today in his little speech, I can pull the quote out easily enough if you need me to, something about Putin abusing human rights, it's one of the few things about today's furore that I'm certain of.  The fact you've glossed over it entirely tells me you haven't given him a fair hearing and would rather follow the crowd and join the jeering masses without actually understanding what you're complaining about.

 

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Hypothetically if we gave them a sample and it was their nerve agent do you think they would admit to it or would we have another MH17 farce? I know we are in an era where nobody believes experts, but these things have a very specific signature which is pointing directly at Russia. These agents will be stored by the state and so should not go missing by accident.  The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming too.  In my opinion Corbyn knows full well that the evidence is stacked against Russia but is using this for political ends which is why many are giving him stick.  Whilst this might play well to his core vote, it continues to show how divisive he is and why he doesn't poll as high as he could against a weak Government.  In my opinion by taking the response we have it is us who are taking the initiative and time will tell how this pans out, but we couldn't leave it this time.

I don't disbelieve that the evidence of Putin's culpability is clear, I'm not 100% certain of it because like everybody else on here I've not seen the evidence with my own eyes but I'm leaning heavily towards it being the case.  That being accepted I'm still not getting the anger behind sending a sample their way, surely doing so would just rub in how much we know about their guilt?

 

37 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I suppose I'm a bit late back to the party.

 

As far I see it, he has given the benefit of the doubt to the Russians rather than our own intelligence services (echoes of Trump). His own shadow foreign secretary tonight, in what seems a far better speech than his, said there's 'prima facie evidence' that it's Russia. That's something he could have done (he will have seen the same evidence as Thornbery and May) but no he refused the condemn Russia and refused to show the unity I'd expect on a national security issue. Then Seamus Milne comes along as his spokesperson to say well the security services have been wrong before. Literally unashamed giving the benefit of the doubt to the Russian government. And Iraq is clearly now the get out of jail free card for the conspiracists, despite the blatant differences here. Anyway let's be clear, we gave Russia the opportunity to explain events, to explain how it lost control of the nerve agent if it wasn't responsible and they didn't even try to. They have done nothing to offer any kind of believable counter-argument. And then Corbyn stands up, repeats the words of Sergey Lavrov almost to the letter (not missed by RT that the opposition leader is saying the same as the Kremlin, how joyed they are), refuses any kind of condemnation of the Russian state related to this act, decides to make some political point again and talks about 'robust dialogue' whatever the **** that means. All he needed to do was put the onus on Russia a bit. Please tell me how it is possible to trust him to lead the country. Which combined with his performance on Monday (truly woeful and shameful) it incenses me that he could ever get near being PM. I mean really what has to happen for him to come down on the UK's side. I suppose war with America might do it.

 

As an addition, a bloke called Craig Murray (some former ambassador) has managed to accuse Israel. Just knew it wouldn't be long til the Jooooooooos got the blame.

 

 

What benefit of the doubt has he given them?  I'm sure I heard him say he supported may in that speech earlier too so I'm a bit confused about the talk of him not showing unity, he simply asked a few questions about how she was proceeding as far as I understand.  Once more I'm open to being shown the key details that I'm missing but from what I've seen him say the reaction looks a lot like biased anger and spin.  I'm not saying I'd trust Corbyn to run the country any more than I would the horror show that is May but just as with the election period I can't get my head around the bile thrown his way and nobody's showing me the quotes that are making them so upset.  This repetition of Lavrov stuff sounds promising though, what did both men say? (And it better not just be the sample request unless someone can explain what's so wrong with that.)

Does this Murray guy speak for Corbyn or Labour in any capacity? 

Edited 14 March 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Guest]

Just posting so some facts are available about the Corbyn position. 

[Vardinio'sCat]

4 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Being rash! Russia has just used nerve agent on our soil and we are expelling some diplomats in retaliation and this is rash!  We let ourselves down with the handling of the Litvinenko case and so I am content that we are taking a proportionate response this time. 

 

The agent used was produced in Russia during the 80s/90s and has a very specific signature. If they cannot explain how it went missing from their stocks then this and the huge volume of circumstantial evidence at this time means we cannot let this go unanswered.

 

The contrast with Litvinyenko is extreme. I think we would have done better taking that much more seriously, but also being a little more circumspect this time. For a start we have given Vlad a nice little pep before his election, and surely he wanted that. If we had been more patient we might have been able to announce some joint sanctions with other Nato members (like France, who alongside Trump, are waiting to see our evidence), although I wouldn't want us to wait more than perhaps a week before at least starting the pressure.

 

The other thing is we seem to have gone a little light on specific economic sanctions on individuals with assets here. I was listening to R4 and they mentioned that BP own 20% of Rosneft, and many Putin associates have assets here. In fairness perhaps TM is keeping those kind of things in reserve for when the retaliation comes.

 

I would rather us do everything strictly by the book, and I think there are those on here who are using this as a political football. For example, who on here is suggesting we let this go unanswered? Is that a strawman I see before me. 

 

 

Edited 15 March 2018 by Vardinio'sCat

[Guest Kopfkino]

44 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 

What benefit of the doubt has he given them?  I'm sure I heard him say he supported may in that speech earlier too so I'm a bit confused about the talk of him not showing unity, he simply asked a few questions about how she was proceeding as far as I understand.  Once more I'm open to being shown the key details that I'm missing but from what I've seen him say the reaction looks a lot like biased anger and spin.  I'm not saying I'd trust Corbyn to run the country any more than I would the horror show that is May but just as with the election period I can't get my head around the bile thrown his way and nobody's showing me the quotes that are making them so upset.  This repetition of Lavrov stuff sounds promising though, what did both men say? (And it better not just be the sample request unless someone can explain what's so wrong with that.)

Does this Murray guy speak for Corbyn or Labour in any capacity? 

 

Oh no Murray thing is of no relevance to Labour, was more an aside pointing out the weirdos that think Israel is at fault for all.

 

Maybe benefit of the doubt is a bad phrase to use. But he has been given evidence from our intelligence services that this is an attack backed by the Russian state and he has clearly refused to believe that a) by not condemning Russia and b) with Seamus Milne's follow up statement that basically dismisses our intelligence services because Iraq. They have certainly not chosen to side with the intelligence services and have put the onus onto them, rather than Russia. Maybe its not benefit of the doubt, but it's not far off. And I said, he need only have done what Emily Thornbery did tonight. 

 

But most of the problem lies in Corbyn's questioning on May following the CWC, parroted from Lavrov. And the problem is, according to this bloke whom I have no reason not to believe, the Russian position, which Corbyn seems to share, is based on a misunderstanding. And as far as I have been able to see, we are not obliged to share a sample with the Russians. It seems to me that Corbyn's office has accepted Lavrov's words verbatim. That uncanny similarity with Lavrov's words suggest to me that the Corbyn position is based on a Russian misunderstanding, surely that's a problem.

 

 

I also must stress how bad his foreign office cuts point was alongside the whole of Monday's statement. You really have to wonder what went through their heads to think the use of chemical weapons on British soil was a good time to do some party politics. 

 

As I said earlier, see Ian Blackford or Yvette Cooper for appropriate responses.

Edited 14 March 2018 by Kopfkino

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Oh no Murray thing is of no relevance to Labour, was more an aside pointing out the weirdos that think Israel is at fault for all.

 

Maybe benefit of the doubt is a bad phrase to use. But he has been given evidence from our intelligence services that this is an attack backed by the Russian state and he has clearly refused to believe that a) by not condemning Russia and b) with Seamus Milne's follow up statement that basically dismisses our intelligence services because Iraq. They have certainly not chosen to side with the intelligence services and have put the onus onto them, rather than Russia. Maybe its not benefit of the doubt, but it's not far off. And I said, he need only have done what Emily Thornbery did tonight. 

 

But most of the problem lies in Corbyn's questioning on May following the CWC, parroted from Lavrov. And the problem is, according to this bloke whom I have no reason not to believe, the Russian position, which Corbyn seems to share, is based on a misunderstanding. And as far as I have been able to see, we are not obliged to share a sample with the Russians. It seems to me that Corbyn's office has accepted Lavrov's words verbatim. That uncanny similarity with Lavrov's words suggest to me that the Corbyn position is based on a Russian misunderstanding, surely that's a problem.

 

 

 

I'm going off memory here so I could be wrong but Corbyn's wording was along the lines of "have we sent the Russians a sample like they requested" not "we must send the Russians a sample because it's the law", I think it's members of the public who support him saying the latter.  As we can see above in Rog's post Corbyn's position is that "the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence", that says to me that he believes there is evidence of Russian culpability but is leaving a little crack in the door for revisionism just in case it turns out like Iraq, regardless that whole statement sounds pretty damning of the Russian state to me, how do you interpret it?

[Salisbury Fox]

5 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

The contrast with Litvinyenko is extreme. I think we would have done better taking that much more seriously, but also being a little more circumspect this time. For a start we have given Vlad a nice little pep before his election, and surely he wanted that. If we had been more patient we might have been able to announce some joint sanctions with other Nato members (like France, who alongside Trump, are waiting to see our evidence), although I wouldn't want us to wait more than perhaps a week before at least starting the pressure.

 

The other thing is we seem to have gone a little light on specific economic sanctions on individuals with assets here. I was listening to R4 and they mentioned that BP own 20% of Rosneft, and many Putin associates have assets here. In fairness perhaps TM is keeping those kind of things in reserve for when the retaliation comes.

 

I would rather us do everything strictly by the book, and I think there are those on here who are using this as a political football. For example, who on here is suggesting we let this go unanswered? Is that a strawman I see before me. 

 

 

Putin does not need any help with his election, his re-election is a given as he his real opponents have either been murdered or have been barred from running. This was covered on Panarama last night.

[Salisbury Fox]

6 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

I don't disbelieve that the evidence of Putin's culpability is clear, I'm not 100% certain of it because like everybody else on here I've not seen the evidence with my own eyes but I'm leaning heavily towards it being the case.  That being accepted I'm still not getting the anger behind sending a sample their way, surely doing so would just rub in how much we know about their guilt?

Sending them a sample would just give them an opportunity to deny their involvement.  I mean no one would seriously believe that they would admit it.  By taking the approach of letting the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons verify our analysis this removes that opportunity whilst strengthening our position.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Sending them a sample would just give them an opportunity to deny their involvement.  I mean no one would seriously believe that they would admit it.  By taking the approach of letting the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons verify our analysis this removes that opportunity whilst strengthening our position.

Apparently this type/strain/whatever of chemical agent was made in one place in Russia only. That's going to be the key point of the British argument. It's interesting that we appear to know all about this but have never called them out for undeclared research before.

 

Tbh I've got nothing to say on defence of Corbyn particularly. Foreign policy is always going to be an area of weakness for him. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

France saying we've acted prematurely

[Strokes]

52 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

France saying we've acted prematurely

Really? Its a bit out of character of the French to be backing away from things

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Really? Its a bit out of character of the French to be backing away from things

 

Haha

[David Guiza]

Corbyn is far from perfect but some of the abuse (yet again) he has faced is just unwarranted and downright bizarre. There is next to no evidence that suggests he is 'turning his back on this country' or 'cosying up with Putin' and he is absolutely spot on that we should question why these Oligarchs are able to use London as a money laundering service. Or is this another case like Saudi Arabia where we can question anything along as it doesn't involve money?

 

There are plenty of things that Corbyn has said that can ridiculed, but this is just sensationalist drivel designed to alienate him yet again. After all It's not as though certain media outlets do not have a knack for twisting his words for sensationalist headlines, like the time he stated that Bin Laden should have been taken alive and faced trial equalled this delightful headline from the Telegraph:-

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11834653/Jeremy-Corbyn-calls-death-of-Osama-bin-Laden-a-tragedy.html

 

Or the time that the Daily Express (is that even a paper?) criticised him because of a distant ancestor of his that he had never heard of:-

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/606509/Socialist-family-fortune-evil-monster-haunts-Corbyn-past

 

Or, perhaps the most ridiculous, that time that Corbyn was accused of stealing sandwiches meant for the veterans:-

 

https://order-order.com/2015/09/15/corbyn-and-watson-accused-of-swiping-sandwiches-meant-for-veterans/

 

As I'm only 26 I can't really comment on the past neutrality of the press, but the current crop is verging on the embarrassing (on both sides). 

[Foxxed]

Boris is urging our allies to act. He's won us so many allies these past few years. Which ones of our allies will be able to rally? He could perhaps convince the economic powerhouses of Australia and Canada to act. Over tea with Merkle and Macron, he could remind them of the time when as trade commissioner Mandleson imposed trade sanctions on China. He could fly over to the US to use his floppy haired charm on Trump too.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

42 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Corbyn is far from perfect but some of the abuse (yet again) he has faced is just unwarranted and downright bizarre. 

 

On the other hand its ok for the left to call Thatcher a witch, and the numerous derogatory names that are Theresa May or other 'Tory Scum' are called frequently on here. 

 

But Comrade Corbyn can never ever be called out.

 

Personally I think they make the decisions to act the way they do they take the flack for it. I see from this tweet that Corbyn is once again back tracking, has he now seen the evidence he doubted so much?

 

At the end of the day, you don't mess with Russia unless you have very good reason too. 

Edited 15 March 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Fox Ulike]

9 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Oh no Murray thing is of no relevance to Labour, was more an aside pointing out the weirdos that think Israel is at fault for all.

 

Maybe benefit of the doubt is a bad phrase to use. But he has been given evidence from our intelligence services that this is an attack backed by the Russian state and he has clearly refused to believe that a) by not condemning Russia and b) with Seamus Milne's follow up statement that basically dismisses our intelligence services because Iraq. They have certainly not chosen to side with the intelligence services and have put the onus onto them, rather than Russia. Maybe its not benefit of the doubt, but it's not far off. And I said, he need only have done what Emily Thornbery did tonight. 

 

But most of the problem lies in Corbyn's questioning on May following the CWC, parroted from Lavrov. And the problem is, according to this bloke whom I have no reason not to believe, the Russian position, which Corbyn seems to share, is based on a misunderstanding. And as far as I have been able to see, we are not obliged to share a sample with the Russians. It seems to me that Corbyn's office has accepted Lavrov's words verbatim. That uncanny similarity with Lavrov's words suggest to me that the Corbyn position is based on a Russian misunderstanding, surely that's a problem.

 

 

He’s clearly done none of those things. His words are a matter of public record. Quote him if you want to take issue with what he’s saying.

 

Honestly. I don’t know why clearly intelligent people like yourself come onto a Politics forum simply to repeat the spin of their favourite media moguls, and to toe the party political line of their favourite party.

 

Let me point out the obvious. No-one in the Government or at the Daily Mail Board of Directors actually believes that Corby is “clearly refuses to believe” our intelligence services. No-one believes this. No-one of any intelligence or understanding of parliamentary democracy actually believes this to be true. Not even you.  They manipulate his words to try and undermine his political standing in the country.

 

Why though, anybody who likes to think of themselves as informed about politics feels the need to just repeat this obvious spin is really beyond me.

 

What we should be discussing is the extent to which parliamentary democracy is being undermined by the Media. Why do they so regularly do this? What do they gain by it?

[Guest Kopfkino]

19 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

He’s clearly done none of those things. His words are a matter of public record. Quote him if you want to take issue with what he’s saying.

 

Honestly. I don’t know why clearly intelligent people like yourself come onto a Politics forum simply to repeat the spin of their favourite media moguls, and to toe the party political line of their favourite party.

 

Let me point out the obvious. No-one in the Government or at the Daily Mail Board of Directors actually believes that Corby is “clearly refuses to believe” our intelligence services. No-one believes this. No-one of any intelligence or understanding of parliamentary democracy actually believes this to be true. Not even you.  They manipulate his words to try and undermine his political standing in the country.

 

Why though, anybody who likes to think of themselves as informed about politics feels the need to just repeat this obvious spin is really beyond me.

 

What we should be discussing is the extent to which parliamentary democracy is being undermined by the Media. Why do they so regularly do this? What do they gain by it?

 

No I'm sticking by my assertion that they don't believe the intelligence services given Seumas Milne's words that they are not currently blaming Russia and that the history of the intelligence services is problematic. Further, given his line of questioning was uncannily the same as Russia's to which an expert in international law says (and the government seems also confident of) comes from a Russian misunderstanding of the law (or likely deliberate misunderstanding). 

 

Even The Guardian today has said "Corbyn's reluctance to share Mrs May's basic analysis of Salisbury made him look eager to exonerate a hostile power", and the New Statesman has hardly been complimentary. It's not just some right-wing media witch hunt of spin again. Almost all of his own MPs stood up and took a dig at him (the traitor Blairites that should be deselected according to Twitter). 

 

At least his shadow defence and shadow foreign secretary are stepping up as you would expect. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

No I'm sticking by my assertion that they don't believe the intelligence services given Seumas Milne's words that they are not currently blaming Russia and that the history of the intelligence services is problematic. Further, given his line of questioning was uncannily the same as Russia's to which an expert in international law says (and the government seems also confident of) comes from a Russian misunderstanding of the law (or likely deliberate misunderstanding). 

 

Even The Guardian today has said "Corbyn's reluctance to share Mrs May's basic analysis of Salisbury made him look eager to exonerate a hostile power", and the New Statesman has hardly been complimentary. It's not just some right-wing media witch hunt of spin again. Almost all of his own MPs stood up and took a dig at him (the traitor Blairites that should be deselected according to Twitter). 

 

At least his shadow defence and shadow foreign secretary are stepping up as you would expect. 

The fact that Corbyn's fairly innocuous comments are being jumped on and spoken about so much is very telling.  The situation itself is not as important as in-fighting and political posturing.

 

He barely said anything.  Its not of massive consequence.  He just tried to provide a bit of balance.