What Corbyn has done is raise awareness of the many human rights abuses occurring within this very country. On something as thorny and murky as this I think he's best-off condemning but also suggesting a methodical way forward. What else could he do? He's already said he'll crack down on money laundering. A military response? Is that what you want?
I am afraid Corbyn is rather late to the party when it comes to human rights abuses in Russia. NO I don't want a military response - but Putin, his regime and his mafia chums need to be treated like the pariahs they are - complete confiscation of all their foreign assets aka as proceeds of crime (including Chelsea FC) would be a start.
Surely the point is Corbyn can't do any of this, and having already said they'd be tougher on finance - he's already ticked that box?
Like i say, it seems to be who is saying it, rather than what they are saying.
I think it was more about how he said what he said. The balance, the emphasis, within his speech as a whole. There is a tradition in Parliament that when there is a real threat to the nation, the Opposition is cautious about point-scoring.
I think he has a legitimate and important question about why the UK had not submitted its evidence to the independent authority on chemical weapons, before coming out and accusing Russia. However he went much further than that, casting doubt on the competence of security agencies and Porton scientists. Anyone dispassionate who had reviewed his words in advance might have said, "look Jeremy, you may feel these points about Iraq WMDs are valid, but maybe its better to let people outside Parliament say it, as many people will take it the wrong way, coming from you. Unfortunately, his key adviser on such matters apparently is Seamus Milne.
Where is this real threat to the nation of which you speak? A real threat to the nation would involve explosions, random killings or a hard Brexit which will hammer the national finances as well as open the country up to massive deregulation.
We don't yet know whether Putin authorised this attempted assasination or it was done without his say so. Both scenarios appear scary but neither will actually affect you or I. In contrast, some of us walked past the wreaths on London Bridge the day after it went mad in Borough Market and, as mentioned above, some of us have kids and nephews of an age to be conscripted if this situation is escalated.
Some people are getting hysterical about this event because it's very different. And May is loving that because this is a week where she isn't getting another kicking over Brexit. She will play this out for as long as she possibly can, milking a sense of national outrage which some are so keen to participate in. As will the Daily Mail, the Express and the Telegraph - and they will all run with your line that it's a threat to the nation with Corbyn being a very bad man and quite possibly Russian!
What about the threat to Russians and their neighbours? Or doesn't that count?
Look who's suddenly concerned!
I don't think so - my wife and kids are Russian dual nationals and I first went to Russia over 25 years ago and have spent a lot of time there during the intervening period.
Fine.
Putin is obviously a monster and a deep threat to life and stability across Russia and Eastern Europe.
I don't know how he can be dealt with.
Corbyn doesn't know how he can be dealt with.
May doesn't know how he can be dealt with, but is enjoying this excuse to look hard.
Trump thinks he's a very successful man I mean have you seen how much money he has?
Hopefully he falls down a well and the resulting succession scramble wrecks any unity in the isolation project they're putting together.
Until that happens, though, I don't see any sudden moves as advantageous for anyone.
I'm sorry if you have family affected by Putin. But Corbyn is not in a position to do anything about it, yet
It may be limited but there is something we can do. What gives us an opportunity is Russia is denying it. Dishonestly or not! That gives us the opportunity to discuss and press them. It gives us the chance to collect the evidence and encourages them to explain rather than get angry and defensive.
Corbyn seems to be the first to be calling for a halt to the money laundering that dodgy Russians do! Something that might hurt them more than a few diplomats being sent home!
No I;m saying give them a sample and listen to them and make your investigations - whilst trying to ensure there is no repeat through dialogue.
They've got their own samples.
Play the game - see what they say and at the same time do your own investigation - it is called getting the facts!
that was tried with Litvinenko - remember the Police going to Moscow after the samples had been left all over London and on the BA flight - all that happened was Lugovoi got a medal. It is a sign of madness to do the same thing and expect a different result.
At least we found out who did it then! After that we have been happy to welcome dodgy Russians to the country and this government accept donations from them! Yes after Litvinenko! I still can't see the great mileage in this for Putin. It makes future swap deals almost impossible for starters! That doesn't mean teh state wasn't involved, it just means lets calm down and do this right!
No I;m saying give them a sample and listen to them and make your investigations - whilst trying to ensure there is no repeat through dialogue.
They've got their own samples.
Play the game - see what they say and at the same time do your own investigation - it is called getting the facts!
that was tried with Litvinenko - remember the Police going to Moscow after the samples had been left all over London and on the BA flight - all that happened was Lugovoi got a medal. It is a sign of madness to do the same thing and expect a different result.
Worth remembering that Russians are past masters of diversion and distraction techniques. Look up maskirovka.
All i have been saying is do it properly with common sense, realism and pragmatism - and try to obtain the best outcome you can. I don't know how many times it needs repeating. Get all your facts right before you act seems to me the template any responsible government should adhere to! It isn't defending the Russians to do this! Does it need typing out in caps?
All i have been saying is do it properly with common sense, realism and pragmatism - and try to obtain the best outcome you can. I don't know how many times it needs repeating. Get all your facts right before you act seems to me the template any responsible government should adhere to! It isn't defending the Russians to do this! Does it need typing out in caps?
You're trying to be reasonable and measured with the wrong people. The Russians will see such a response as weakness which will invite further attacks.
It may be limited but there is something we can do. What gives us an opportunity is Russia is denying it. Dishonestly or not! That gives us the opportunity to discuss and press them. It gives us the chance to collect the evidence and encourages them to explain rather than get angry and defensive.
Corbyn seems to be the first to be calling for a halt to the money laundering that dodgy Russians do! Something that might hurt them more than a few diplomats being sent home!
Agree with you on the point of laundering money. Because we haven't been discerning when it come to foreigners with sheds loads of money buying up London, it set a terrible precedence In the shady world of high level wheeler dealers. 27 out of 30 properties in Belgrade Square are foreign and many are Russian. No deals are done without Putin knowing about it and taking his cut.
But Corbyn has been calling for something to be done about it! Sometimes actions speak louder than words. So Corbyn has condemned the attack, accepted the probability it was Russia and put forwards a suggestion that would go further in terms of affecting Russia than anything May has done. And people are coming down on him because he is saying there needs to be a process. It is something we should be demanding of our government given the lessons of our recent past. That is not supporting Putin, praising him or even appeasing him. But it is doing things properly!
I am not a fan of Trump but I don't run to criticise him like some. He is the president America voted for. Even he for all his faults shows more diplomacy and intelligence in the way he deals with Russia. Then people will say, well he would wouldn't he - theRussians rigged the election. Which in all honesty is ridiculous. I'm sure there was some meddling but the accusation of numbers and monies doesn't stack up. If they could do it with those resources you have to be amazed. If we want to blame the Russians for Trump it only shows how we have to challenge ourselves.
Here is my problem. First motive - 1) Russia wanted to scare off future traitors by using a substance that had its signature (pros - perfectly feasible and Russia has previous - cons this almost certainly will compromise mutual swap deals, this may not be the best time for a cold war with the west with the World Cup approaching. but it could be a double bluff and Russia may think it got away with it in the past. 2) Somebody wanted to make it look like Russia - who would want to do that? - it isn't clear that is for certain - but assuming there are people and they could be Russian but not the Russian state - this would be a good way to do it!
I would lean towards number 1 but I couldn't rule out number 2.
So then we have the nerve agent - Identified in britain as Novichok - a Russian invention - the inventor can verify this as he is now living in the US. There is a question around this though - why have we not sent it to an international laboratory to check? As we should have done as per chemical weapons conventions? Why haven't we given a sample to the Russians for their own verification. There are claims that samples of this agent are held in laboratories around the world for identifying cures - but if that is the case, it would be available from a number of sources not just Russia. But maybe that is wrong, but we need to know everything about the identification and have second opinion to corroborate - not from Russia, but from a friendly source surely. Is it impossible we haven't got it wrong? i don't know - but second opinions are re-assuring.
Why have we not taken the time to go through this process meticulously and possibly be able to draw the conclusion it was Russia with certainty? These questions are very important to ask. if the initial conclusions are correct, we should demand the vigour anyway as it is a protection history demands given what has happened in the past. And if we do it properly we have Russia banged to rights rather than able to attack us for threatening and giving them an aggressive ultimatum that they can make an argument for why they reacted negatively.
Corbyn has not for a minute claimed Russia is innocent, but he wants this rigour - and so should all of us. Anybody who understands how Corbyn thinks would get this is not a party political issue but his logical natural thought process.
Here is my problem. First motive - 1) Russia wanted to scare off future traitors by using a substance that had its signature (pros - perfectly feasible and Russia has previous - cons this almost certainly will compromise mutual swap deals, this may not be the best time for a cold war with the west with the World Cup approaching. but it could be a double bluff and Russia may think it got away with it in the past. 2) Somebody wanted to make it look like Russia - who would want to do that? - it isn't clear that is for certain - but assuming there are people and they could be Russian but not the Russian state - this would be a good way to do it!
I would lean towards number 1 but I couldn't rule out number 2.
So then we have the nerve agent - Identified in britain as Novichok - a Russian invention - the inventor can verify this as he is now living in the US. There is a question around this though - why have we not sent it to an international laboratory to check? As we should have done as per chemical weapons conventions? Why haven't we given a sample to the Russians for their own verification. There are claims that samples of this agent are held in laboratories around the world for identifying cures - but if that is the case, it would be available from a number of sources not just Russia. But maybe that is wrong, but we need to know everything about the identification and have second opinion to corroborate - not from Russia, but from a friendly source surely. Is it impossible we haven't got it wrong? i don't know - but second opinions are re-assuring.
Why have we not taken the time to go through this process meticulously and possibly be able to draw the conclusion it was Russia with certainty? These questions are very important to ask. if the initial conclusions are correct, we should demand the vigour anyway as it is a protection history demands given what has happened in the past. And if we do it properly we have Russia banged to rights rather than able to attack us for threatening and giving them an aggressive ultimatum that they can make an argument for why they reacted negatively.
Corbyn has not for a minute claimed Russia is innocent, but he wants this rigour - and so should all of us. Anybody who understands how Corbyn thinks would get this is not a party political issue but his logical natural thought process.
My understanding is that we have showed the chemical weopons people our data and I thought we were in the process of sending samples? (Presuambly you cannot just fedex them...).
I also suspect our scientists have lots of evidence around this, and that our initillegnce services have also assisted. The geneal public will obviously not have the full picture.
No we don't - and we do have to be sure the process is correct and has no errors. Like I said, no need to rush - we are talking about a few more weeks not months or years!
What Corbyn has done is raise awareness of the many human rights abuses occurring within this very country. On something as thorny and murky as this I think he's best-off condemning but also suggesting a methodical way forward. What else could he do? He's already said he'll crack down on money laundering. A military response? Is that what you want?
I am afraid Corbyn is rather late to the party when it comes to human rights abuses in Russia. NO I don't want a military response - but Putin, his regime and his mafia chums need to be treated like the pariahs they are - complete confiscation of all their foreign assets aka as proceeds of crime (including Chelsea FC) would be a start.
Surely the point is Corbyn can't do any of this, and having already said they'd be tougher on finance - he's already ticked that box?
Like i say, it seems to be who is saying it, rather than what they are saying.
I think it was more about how he said what he said. The balance, the emphasis, within his speech as a whole. There is a tradition in Parliament that when there is a real threat to the nation, the Opposition is cautious about point-scoring.
I think he has a legitimate and important question about why the UK had not submitted its evidence to the independent authority on chemical weapons, before coming out and accusing Russia. However he went much further than that, casting doubt on the competence of security agencies and Porton scientists. Anyone dispassionate who had reviewed his words in advance might have said, "look Jeremy, you may feel these points about Iraq WMDs are valid, but maybe its better to let people outside Parliament say it, as many people will take it the wrong way, coming from you. Unfortunately, his key adviser on such matters apparently is Seamus Milne.
Where is this real threat to the nation of which you speak? A real threat to the nation would involve explosions, random killings or a hard Brexit which will hammer the national finances as well as open the country up to massive deregulation.
We don't yet know whether Putin authorised this attempted assasination or it was done without his say so. Both scenarios appear scary but neither will actually affect you or I. In contrast, some of us walked past the wreaths on London Bridge the day after it went mad in Borough Market and, as mentioned above, some of us have kids and nephews of an age to be conscripted if this situation is escalated.
Some people are getting hysterical about this event because it's very different. And May is loving that because this is a week where she isn't getting another kicking over Brexit. She will play this out for as long as she possibly can, milking a sense of national outrage which some are so keen to participate in. As will the Daily Mail, the Express and the Telegraph - and they will all run with your line that it's a threat to the nation with Corbyn being a very bad man and quite possibly Russian!
What about the threat to Russians and their neighbours? Or doesn't that count?
Look who's suddenly concerned!
I don't think so - my wife and kids are Russian dual nationals and I first went to Russia over 25 years ago and have spent a lot of time there during the intervening period.
Fine.
Putin is obviously a monster and a deep threat to life and stability across Russia and Eastern Europe.
I don't know how he can be dealt with.
Corbyn doesn't know how he can be dealt with.
May doesn't know how he can be dealt with, but is enjoying this excuse to look hard.
Trump thinks he's a very successful man I mean have you seen how much money he has?
Hopefully he falls down a well and the resulting succession scramble wrecks any unity in the isolation project they're putting together.
Until that happens, though, I don't see any sudden moves as advantageous for anyone.
I'm sorry if you have family affected by Putin. But Corbyn is not in a position to do anything about it, yet
He is actually. He is able to take stances on the issue which do not look like he can be easily 'played'. Assuming, that is, that he doesn't have more 'previous' which the Russians can use against him.
Above all, we need to remember that Russia has no history of democracy. It is alien to them. In contrast Czechoslovakia ("a far away country of which we know little" - Chamberlain) was an advanced liberal democracy before WW2. Putin doesn't give a shit about HM Opposition playing the role of opposing. He only cares about what the UK is actually going to do. He understands that what it does, will be governed by public opinion, which he notices with satisfaction to be far less under control than in the country of which he is Tsar. Corbyn is in a key position to influence UK public opinion. How he has gone about it, is the subject we are now considering.
No we don't - and we do have to be sure the process is correct and has no errors. Like I said, no need to rush - we are talking about a few more weeks not months or years!
Yes we do. We know exactly what it is.
What do you think they do at Porton Down? Send in a couple of geezers in white coats with a Bunsen burner and a microscope?
Here is my problem. First motive - 1) Russia wanted to scare off future traitors by using a substance that had its signature (pros - perfectly feasible and Russia has previous - cons this almost certainly will compromise mutual swap deals, this may not be the best time for a cold war with the west with the World Cup approaching. but it could be a double bluff and Russia may think it got away with it in the past. 2) Somebody wanted to make it look like Russia - who would want to do that? - it isn't clear that is for certain - but assuming there are people and they could be Russian but not the Russian state - this would be a good way to do it!
I would lean towards number 1 but I couldn't rule out number 2.
So then we have the nerve agent - Identified in britain as Novichok - a Russian invention - the inventor can verify this as he is now living in the US. There is a question around this though - why have we not sent it to an international laboratory to check? As we should have done as per chemical weapons conventions? Why haven't we given a sample to the Russians for their own verification. There are claims that samples of this agent are held in laboratories around the world for identifying cures - but if that is the case, it would be available from a number of sources not just Russia. But maybe that is wrong, but we need to know everything about the identification and have second opinion to corroborate - not from Russia, but from a friendly source surely. Is it impossible we haven't got it wrong? i don't know - but second opinions are re-assuring.
Why have we not taken the time to go through this process meticulously and possibly be able to draw the conclusion it was Russia with certainty? These questions are very important to ask. if the initial conclusions are correct, we should demand the vigour anyway as it is a protection history demands given what has happened in the past. And if we do it properly we have Russia banged to rights rather than able to attack us for threatening and giving them an aggressive ultimatum that they can make an argument for why they reacted negatively.
Corbyn has not for a minute claimed Russia is innocent, but he wants this rigour - and so should all of us. Anybody who understands how Corbyn thinks would get this is not a party political issue but his logical natural thought process.
My understanding is that we have showed the chemical weopons people our data and I thought we were in the process of sending samples? (Presuambly you cannot just fedex them...).
I also suspect our scientists have lots of evidence around this, and that our initillegnce services have also assisted. The geneal public will obviously not have the full picture.
We clearly have given some data on the agent to the Russians as well - Putin's chief UK puppet is quoting the agent's number.
@MuttleyCAFC - If the Putin didn't sanction it and it was someone trying to make it look like he did, why didn't he choose to co-operate with the British Government's ultimatum? Instead he chose to sneer and ridcule it.
Because it was made in the wrong way. That is the point I have been trying to make. I suspect it is a waste of time. My final attempt - Giving Russia a threatening ultimatum invites them to sneer when we should be using the fact they denied it to get the answers.
And who will be hurt most by the closing down of the British Council in Russia - students and ordinary Russians, many of who use the British Council to help learn English: and by the closing down of the British Consul in St Petersburg - ordinary Russians who will not have the time/money to go to Moscow to get visas. You see the measure of the regime by this behaviour if nothing else - they are prepared to harm ordinary Russians so as to protect their own interests.
And who will be hurt most by the closing down of the British Council in Russia - students and ordinary Russians, many of who use the British Council to help learn English: and by the closing down of the British Consul in St Petersburg - ordinary Russians who will not have the time/money to go to Moscow to get visas. You see the measure of the regime by this behaviour if nothing else - they are prepared to harm ordinary Russians so as to protect their own interests.
I think we are in agreement on that. I won't defend Putin and it isn't the point. The point is this is a serious matter that requires action to be taken in a considered and most effective way. All this painting of Corbyn as Putin's mate is rubbish, he is saying do this properly and has been advocating actual actions that will hurt Russia more. Andrew Marr's interview with Boris Johnson sums up everything I have been talking about. He fudged his way around the question of the wife of a rich Russian close to Putin paying £160k to play tennis with him.
I have not been defending Putin here, but some of you have been so caught up in this frenzy that you have read it as so. I am saying that like it or not Russia is a country you have to tread carefully with. You have to collect the evidence in the right way and not put them on the defensive - they said they didn't do it - that is your opening to get to the bottom of it. Those that think of Corbyn supporters as being brainwashed don't seem to realise how they are being manipulated. Corbyn has criticised Russia, has said we need to do this properly and has been advocating - even before this - that we do something about dirty Russian money when the Tories who are being politically opportunistic here have been swimming in it!
It is about what you do and how you do it. Corbyn is not a member of ISIS or the IRA. He is not Putin's stooge. He is somebody who has such strong principles that he says and does what he believes to make things better even though he knows he will be hammered for it. Amazing that some of the people defending and recognising that are from the right! You don't have to agree with him, but like I said, what he is proposing is not bluster but things that will hurt Russia more. He just wants us to take a breath, prepare our case and then act, not dash in without the evidence that ultimately Russia will use as an excuse not to engage and face their responsibilities. And this template should be used for all future crisis. You don't have to look too far back where rushing in all guns blazing has not been the wisest approach before.
@MuttleyCAFC many of us who are criticising Corbyn on this are not advocating "rushing in all guns blazing". Indeed I could dig out comments I have made on here over many years about how we should be targetting unfeasibly rich Russians (and other nationals). It is a disgrace that London is regarded as the money-laundering capital of the world.
You say "It is about what you do and how you do it". Well, exactly. The issue was surely the balance of content and tone in Corbyn's initial speech. The fact that it was received with very lukewarm support on his own benches ought to tell you that something was wrong. Since then, other ministers have sought to redress the balance of Labour's message. McDonnell on Peston appears to be the latest. BTW I will give McDonnell due credit for immediately conceding last week that he should not go on RT any more. Corbyn should show that he too can turn away from long term ideological positions when presented with new facts and realities. I have not seen that yet. It seems to me the Labour position is correcting itself in spite of him.
Poor judgement, and he wants to be Prime Minister in these most tricky times. (although of course I agree that I could say exactly the same thing about the fat lump of lard masquerading as our Foreign Secretary)
Prague you are intelligent and reasonable -His speech was a reaction to the rushing in all guns blazing approach and has to be viewed in that context - which is what my position has been on here and I still get people constantly telling me how bad Putin is as if I support him when I haven't said he isn't. I think you have to take Corbyn out of this equation and look at the detail and you probably wont disagree much with Corbyn's position.
You have to be pragmatic and sensible. If you build the case you get more international support and Russia gets pushed into a corner. I made the point about Grenfall where it has all been about taking time - I think too much time. The government has shown it can take a step back and take the required time! When it comes to this it is simply playing into Russia's hands taking the response we have unless we want to stop buying their gas which will of course hurt us too, but would be a proper reaction!
Prague you are intelligent and reasonable -His speech was a reaction to the rushing in all guns blazing approach and has to be viewed in that context - which is what my position has been on here and I still get people constantly telling me how bad Putin is as if I support him when I haven't said he isn't. I think you have to take Corbyn out of this equation and look at the detail and you probably wont disagree much with Corbyn's position.
You have to be pragmatic and sensible. If you build the case you get more international support and Russia gets pushed into a corner. I made the point about Grenfall where it has all been about taking time - I think too much time. The government has shown it can take a step back and take the required time! When it comes to this it is simply playing into Russia's hands taking the response we have unless we want to stop buying their gas which will of course hurt us too, but would be a proper reaction!
Who rushed in all guns blazing ? His speech was actually an attempt to gain party political points over the Tories but it wasn’t the time nor the place. As for being pragmatic and sensible, I think May was just that. As Prague says, last week’s reaction of Labour MPs including frontbenchers plus the subsequent rowing back by others shows just how wrong Corbyn got it.
Comments
Putin is obviously a monster and a deep threat to life and stability across Russia and Eastern Europe.
I don't know how he can be dealt with.
Corbyn doesn't know how he can be dealt with.
May doesn't know how he can be dealt with, but is enjoying this excuse to look hard.
Trump thinks he's a very successful man I mean have you seen how much money he has?
Hopefully he falls down a well and the resulting succession scramble wrecks any unity in the isolation project they're putting together.
Until that happens, though, I don't see any sudden moves as advantageous for anyone.
I'm sorry if you have family affected by Putin. But Corbyn is not in a position to do anything about it, yet
I am not a fan of Trump but I don't run to criticise him like some. He is the president America voted for. Even he for all his faults shows more diplomacy and intelligence in the way he deals with Russia. Then people will say, well he would wouldn't he - theRussians rigged the election. Which in all honesty is ridiculous. I'm sure there was some meddling but the accusation of numbers and monies doesn't stack up. If they could do it with those resources you have to be amazed. If we want to blame the Russians for Trump it only shows how we have to challenge ourselves.
I would lean towards number 1 but I couldn't rule out number 2.
So then we have the nerve agent - Identified in britain as Novichok - a Russian invention - the inventor can verify this as he is now living in the US. There is a question around this though - why have we not sent it to an international laboratory to check? As we should have done as per chemical weapons conventions? Why haven't we given a sample to the Russians for their own verification. There are claims that samples of this agent are held in laboratories around the world for identifying cures - but if that is the case, it would be available from a number of sources not just Russia. But maybe that is wrong, but we need to know everything about the identification and have second opinion to corroborate - not from Russia, but from a friendly source surely. Is it impossible we haven't got it wrong? i don't know - but second opinions are re-assuring.
Why have we not taken the time to go through this process meticulously and possibly be able to draw the conclusion it was Russia with certainty? These questions are very important to ask. if the initial conclusions are correct, we should demand the vigour anyway as it is a protection history demands given what has happened in the past. And if we do it properly we have Russia banged to rights rather than able to attack us for threatening and giving them an aggressive ultimatum that they can make an argument for why they reacted negatively.
Corbyn has not for a minute claimed Russia is innocent, but he wants this rigour - and so should all of us. Anybody who understands how Corbyn thinks would get this is not a party political issue but his logical natural thought process.
I also suspect our scientists have lots of evidence around this, and that our initillegnce services have also assisted. The geneal public will obviously not have the full picture.
Above all, we need to remember that Russia has no history of democracy. It is alien to them. In contrast Czechoslovakia ("a far away country of which we know little" - Chamberlain) was an advanced liberal democracy before WW2. Putin doesn't give a shit about HM Opposition playing the role of opposing. He only cares about what the UK is actually going to do. He understands that what it does, will be governed by public opinion, which he notices with satisfaction to be far less under control than in the country of which he is Tsar. Corbyn is in a key position to influence UK public opinion. How he has gone about it, is the subject we are now considering.
What do you think they do at Porton Down? Send in a couple of geezers in white coats with a Bunsen burner and a microscope?
I have not been defending Putin here, but some of you have been so caught up in this frenzy that you have read it as so. I am saying that like it or not Russia is a country you have to tread carefully with. You have to collect the evidence in the right way and not put them on the defensive - they said they didn't do it - that is your opening to get to the bottom of it. Those that think of Corbyn supporters as being brainwashed don't seem to realise how they are being manipulated. Corbyn has criticised Russia, has said we need to do this properly and has been advocating - even before this - that we do something about dirty Russian money when the Tories who are being politically opportunistic here have been swimming in it!
It is about what you do and how you do it. Corbyn is not a member of ISIS or the IRA. He is not Putin's stooge. He is somebody who has such strong principles that he says and does what he believes to make things better even though he knows he will be hammered for it. Amazing that some of the people defending and recognising that are from the right! You don't have to agree with him, but like I said, what he is proposing is not bluster but things that will hurt Russia more. He just wants us to take a breath, prepare our case and then act, not dash in without the evidence that ultimately Russia will use as an excuse not to engage and face their responsibilities. And this template should be used for all future crisis. You don't have to look too far back where rushing in all guns blazing has not been the wisest approach before.
You say "It is about what you do and how you do it". Well, exactly. The issue was surely the balance of content and tone in Corbyn's initial speech. The fact that it was received with very lukewarm support on his own benches ought to tell you that something was wrong. Since then, other ministers have sought to redress the balance of Labour's message. McDonnell on Peston appears to be the latest. BTW I will give McDonnell due credit for immediately conceding last week that he should not go on RT any more. Corbyn should show that he too can turn away from long term ideological positions when presented with new facts and realities. I have not seen that yet. It seems to me the Labour position is correcting itself in spite of him.
Poor judgement, and he wants to be Prime Minister in these most tricky times. (although of course I agree that I could say exactly the same thing about the fat lump of lard masquerading as our Foreign Secretary)
You have to be pragmatic and sensible. If you build the case you get more international support and Russia gets pushed into a corner. I made the point about Grenfall where it has all been about taking time - I think too much time. The government has shown it can take a step back and take the required time! When it comes to this it is simply playing into Russia's hands taking the response we have unless we want to stop buying their gas which will of course hurt us too, but would be a proper reaction!
As for being pragmatic and sensible, I think May was just that. As Prague says, last week’s reaction of Labour MPs including frontbenchers plus the subsequent rowing back by others shows just how wrong Corbyn got it.