Mc Donnell has just carefully contradicted Corbyn on the Peston show. He must realise this is a killer issue for Labour to get wrong.
Yup, quotes below:
"We support exactly what the Prime Minister said and we condemn Russia for this. I believe this is a pattern of behaviour we have seen."
"whichever way you look at it (Vladimir Putin) is responsible".
Mr McDonnell appeared to go further on Peston on Sunday, saying the Salisbury incident is "highly likely" to have been a state execution.
When asked if he pointed the finger directly at the Russian president, Mr McDonnell said: "He is responsible whichever way you look at it, he is responsible and all the evidence points to him."
The sad thing is - Putin is probably not at all unhappy to be so accused in the way we have done, because he is now able to claim to be the injured party in a dispute with the evil West. We have bestowed upon him the moral high ground – a high price to pay for the expulsion of a few spies (which is all we have done).
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.
Putin has been in charge fro 18 years, of which Corbyn has been Labour Leader for 3 years and wasn't exactly silent before then. What has he said about Putin up until now? How many years does considered action take?
The sad thing is - Putin is probably not at all unhappy to be so accused in the way we have done, because he is now able to claim to be the injured party in a dispute with the evil West. We have bestowed upon him the moral high ground – a high price to pay for the expulsion of a few spies (which is all we have done).
No, he's claimed some sort of moral high ground. He doesn't actually have it and never will. Even IF he turns out to have nothing whatsoever to do with the murder (and that's one hell of an if) the fact that everyone and everything points to him being EXACTLY the kind of person who would be involved is damning enough.
No one in this world should consider that Putin has any moral high ground in anything.
He has bestowed it on himself. Sometimes it is ok to disagree but understand the point - but if people purposely try not to undertsand - well there is little point.
No one in this world should consider that Putin has any moral high ground in anything.
He has bestowed it on himself. Sometimes it is ok to disagree but understand the point - but if people purposely try not to undertsand - well there is little point.
You always seem to want the last word yet then make a statement such as ‘purposely try not to understand’ which you know is provocative!
John McDonnell realized that this adult pantomime had gone on too long. This isn't a nuanced spy mystery with subtle complexity. It's so signposted that even the Marxist McDonnell has the nounce to see that.
John McDonnell realized that this adult pantomime had gone on too long. This isn't a nuanced spy mystery with subtle complexity. It's so signposted that even the Marxist McDonnell has the nounce to see that.
I think culpability is likely to lie with Russia and agree that even if it was the Mafia, Putin does not escape responsibility. All scenarios look bad on Russia but getting as many of the facts as you can is the way to do it. It is the way you need to approach everything. Say evidence came to light that Putin wasn't aware - for me he is head of state in a country that allows this which is bad, but he will not be likely to engage and treat it as a gross injustice.
The point that has been lost in the feeding frenzy is that politicians like Johnson who is at the forefont of benefitting from dodgy Russian money is the first to make the accusations when the details cannot be fully know, Why some people have an aversion to getting the details and using them with intelligence to improve Russia's future behaviour - or at least try to is beyond me. How you try to misrepresent what I am saying doesn't matter - but I'll continue to stick up for Corbyn. Maybe I will be less cynical when I see some meaningful actions rather than the jumping up and down. And maybe Corbyn should be irrelevant here, but teh fact that everybody wants to bring him into it is suspicious!
Owen Jones nailed it on Newsnight last week and won the support of two journalists from the Mail and Times in a panel discussion. 1) It was May who blocked progress on Litvinenko 2) It's the Tories who have blocked Labour Magnitsky style proposals 3) It's the Tories who are awash with donations from Russian oligarchs (and the Saudis) 4) Corbyn voted against the Iraq war as well as the invasion in Lybya - that was the right position to take on national security. Needless to say that was not the Tory position nor that of the Blairites.
You can see the clip on his Twitter feed.
If one were to ask the British public about money laundering, Russian oligarchs in London as well as multinationals taking profits out of the UK tax free then we might be surprised to find that Corbyn And Labour are more aligned to the electorate than some believe.
The attempted hatchet job on Corbyn by the Mail and Express is quite simply because he is not aligned with the interests of the 1% (including the owners of the Brexit press).
Fortunately, due to the BBC and social media such as Twitter, people like Owen Jones can put a view across.
It's only now that samples are going to an international testing group. And yet Johnson and Williamson are playing dumb and dumber on Twitter as they directly blame Putin. Are they stupid or are they simply trying to deflect from Brexit and a government which is doing nothing?
We've expelled 23 "diplomats" but so what? No sanctions and no upping the game with money laundering. And no material action from western allies who are probably holding their heads in anguish at the antics of the Foreign Secretary.
Russian oligarch money is hidden in offshore vehicles which then acquire financial and property assets in London. Now which party is planning to do something about that and which one has accepted millions in donations from these same people?
I think culpability is likely to lie with Russia and agree that even if it was the Mafia, Putin does not escape responsibility. All scenarios look bad on Russia but getting as many of the facts as you can is the way to do it. It is the way you need to approach everything. Say evidence came to light that Putin wasn't aware - for me he is head of state in a country that allows this which is bad, but he will not be likely to engage and treat it as a gross injustice.
The point that has been lost in the feeding frenzy is that politicians like Johnson who is at the forefont of benefitting from dodgy Russian money is the first to make the accusations when the details cannot be fully know, Why some people have an aversion to getting the details and using them with intelligence to improve Russia's future behaviour - or at least try to is beyond me. How you try to misrepresent what I am saying doesn't matter - but I'll continue to stick up for Corbyn. Maybe I will be less cynical when I see some meaningful actions rather than the jumping up and down. And maybe Corbyn should be irrelevant here, but teh fact that everybody wants to bring him into it is suspicious!
Here we go again ... ‘misrepresent’ is a bit unlikely when all I did was repeat YOUR words!
Plus you are still ignoring the words of his own deputy.
No I have never said Putin was innocent - you might try to re-interpret the meaning to suit your own ends, but my view has remained the same and I should know what it is better than anybody. To clarify for the simple minded, I have not said Putin is innocent, I have said this needs to be done properly and to a process which is what Corbyn has been saying. If you think it shouldn't ok - that is your view but to misrepresent, yes misrepresent the more considered approach is ridiculous.
Owen Jones nailed it on Newsnight last week and won the support of two journalists from the Mail and Times in a panel discussion. 1) It was May who blocked progress on Litvinenko 2) It's the Tories who have blocked Labour Magnitsky style proposals 3) It's the Tories who are awash with donations from Russian oligarchs (and the Saudis) 4) Corbyn voted against the Iraq war as well as the invasion in Lybya - that was the right position to take on national security. Needless to say that was not the Tory position nor that of the Blairites.
You can see the clip on his Twitter feed.
If one were to ask the British public about money laundering, Russian oligarchs in London as well as multinationals taking profits out of the UK tax free then we might be surprised to find that Corbyn And Labour are more aligned to the electorate than some believe.
The attempted hatchet job on Corbyn by the Mail and Express is quite simply because he is not aligned with the interests of the 1% (including the owners of the Brexit press).
Fortunately, due to the BBC and social media such as Twitter, people like Owen Jones can put a view across.
It's only now that samples are going to an international testing group. And yet Johnson and Williamson are playing dumb and dumber on Twitter as they directly blame Putin. Are they stupid or are they simply trying to deflect from Brexit and a government which is doing nothing?
We've expelled 23 "diplomats" but so what? No sanctions and no upping the game with money laundering. And no material action from western allies who are probably holding their heads in anguish at the antics of the Foreign Secretary.
Russian oligarch money is hidden in offshore vehicles which then acquire financial and property assets in London. Now which party is planning to do something about that and which one has accepted millions in donations from these same people?
Owen Jones was pretty impressive doing the Andrew Marr, Sunday paper review this morning. Even had the dozy (so called) Sun journalist agreeing with him. Sometimes think he goes a bit over the top but not today. It was however all part of the damage limitation exercise following Corbyn’s dire handling of things last week.
No I have never said Putin was innocent - you might try to re-interpret the meaning to suit your own ends, but my view has remained the same and I should know what it is better than anybody. To clarify for the simple minded, I have not said Putin is innocent, I have said this needs to be done properly and to a process which is what Corbyn has been saying. If you think it shouldn't ok - that is your view but to misrepresent, yes misrepresent the more considered approach is ridiculous.
Owen Jones grandfather was involved with the Communist Party. His parents were both members of Militant Tendency and before he became a journalist he was a parliamentary researcher working for John McDonnell. I don't listen to his views .
No I have never said Putin was innocent - you might try to re-interpret the meaning to suit your own ends, but my view has remained the same and I should know what it is better than anybody. To clarify for the simple minded, I have not said Putin is innocent, I have said this needs to be done properly and to a process which is what Corbyn has been saying. If you think it shouldn't ok - that is your view but to misrepresent, yes misrepresent the more considered approach is ridiculous.
Do you believe Putin is guilty though?
I think it is much more probable that he was aware and even sanctioned it than not, but even if not, he can't escape culpability to some degree. I think there is a process that is very important to follow in these matters and our government should have done so. And as Seriously Red has pointed out, I also see no action other than tit for tat diplomat expulsions. Collect the evidence, give the Russians the sample they requested, get it tested at an international centre as should have happened immediately. Talk to the Russians with the premise of innocence before guilt and build the case against them. Push them into a diplomatic corner rather than allow them to bite back! And when you have the evidence and international consensus, do something meaningful, including internationally.
Comments
"We support exactly what the Prime Minister said and we condemn Russia for this. I believe this is a pattern of behaviour we have seen."
"whichever way you look at it (Vladimir Putin) is responsible".
Mr McDonnell appeared to go further on Peston on Sunday, saying the Salisbury incident is "highly likely" to have been a state execution.
When asked if he pointed the finger directly at the Russian president, Mr McDonnell said: "He is responsible whichever way you look at it, he is responsible and all the evidence points to him."
Even IF he turns out to have nothing whatsoever to do with the murder (and that's one hell of an if) the fact that everyone and everything points to him being EXACTLY the kind of person who would be involved is damning enough.
First pictures of Russian Embassy staff leaving for airport after being expelled.
Plus you first said that we bestowed it upon him!
I am far from the only one on here saying this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5513629/PETER-HITCHENS-patriotic-thought-police-came-Corbyn.html
“We support exactly what the Prime Minister said and we condemn Russia for this. I believe this is a pattern of behaviour we have seen."
"whichever way you look at it (Vladimir Putin) is responsible".
“the Salisbury incident is "highly likely" to have been a state execution.”
“Putin is responsible whichever way you look at it, he is responsible and all the evidence points to him."
The point that has been lost in the feeding frenzy is that politicians like Johnson who is at the forefont of benefitting from dodgy Russian money is the first to make the accusations when the details cannot be fully know, Why some people have an aversion to getting the details and using them with intelligence to improve Russia's future behaviour - or at least try to is beyond me. How you try to misrepresent what I am saying doesn't matter - but I'll continue to stick up for Corbyn. Maybe I will be less cynical when I see some meaningful actions rather than the jumping up and down. And maybe Corbyn should be irrelevant here, but teh fact that everybody wants to bring him into it is suspicious!
1) It was May who blocked progress on Litvinenko
2) It's the Tories who have blocked Labour Magnitsky style proposals
3) It's the Tories who are awash with donations from Russian oligarchs (and the Saudis)
4) Corbyn voted against the Iraq war as well as the invasion in Lybya - that was the right position to take on national security. Needless to say that was not the Tory position nor that of the Blairites.
You can see the clip on his Twitter feed.
If one were to ask the British public about money laundering, Russian oligarchs in London as well as multinationals taking profits out of the UK tax free then we might be surprised to find that Corbyn And Labour are more aligned to the electorate than some believe.
The attempted hatchet job on Corbyn by the Mail and Express is quite simply because he is not aligned with the interests of the 1% (including the owners of the Brexit press).
Fortunately, due to the BBC and social media such as Twitter, people like Owen Jones can put a view across.
It's only now that samples are going to an international testing group. And yet Johnson and Williamson are playing dumb and dumber on Twitter as they directly blame Putin. Are they stupid or are they simply trying to deflect from Brexit and a government which is doing nothing?
We've expelled 23 "diplomats" but so what? No sanctions and no upping the game with money laundering. And no material action from western allies who are probably holding their heads in anguish at the antics of the Foreign Secretary.
Russian oligarch money is hidden in offshore vehicles which then acquire financial and property assets in London. Now which party is planning to do something about that and which one has accepted millions in donations from these same people?
Here we go again ... ‘misrepresent’ is a bit unlikely when all I did was repeat YOUR words!
Plus you are still ignoring the words of his own deputy.
argumentum ad captandum
I think I’ll leave it there ... for now.
I don't listen to his views .
Putin and his regime would deny they did it even if we had video of him force feeding Skripal with a luminous green fluid.
It's what they do.