Boris:
Corbyn:
Porton Down:
So if you're following your idea of evidence is evidence. Then surely that means that Corbyn is right given the only public evidence we've had sides with Corbyns approach...?
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Boris:
Corbyn:
Porton Down:
So if you're following your idea of evidence is evidence. Then surely that means that Corbyn is right given the only public evidence we've had sides with Corbyns approach...?
decent circumstantial evidence, but any responsible person will wait for a little more, like for example
these countries which waited for the UK to give them intelligence briefings
I see your false flag and raise you Occam's Razor.
So presumably Corbyn is irresponsible for saying it came from Russia before Johnson did.
But why are you talking about Corbyn? Because under pressure to say something, he didn't. What would be the difference if he did?
is this the one you're referring to? seems reasonable to meJezza said:
How can you possibly arrive at that conclusion? A pushover would come out with the most populist thing not take slack for wanting due process.
As if Corbyn feels that pressure of Putin more than his own MPS, the public or the goverment which he has to debate live on air every week
No, this one
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/15/salisbury-attack-conflict-britain-cold-war
This was back when his line was that it might've been stolen by Russian crooks rather than the state, and asked why more wasn't being done on that. Which, as lines go, was fine.
Exactly.
How is that the same as what Boris said in any way? You know its not.
The original came from Russia, they're now all using the line novi-type agent and they're being selective with their wording for a reason.
I'll add in its still probably russia as if i don't someone will come back with the usual tripe.
Anyone know what human rights issues Corbyn was talking about during his Press TV appearances?
Well yes, because the PLP aren't really left-wing.
Gah, this whole thread of discussion has been about whether the evidence backs up the idea it was sourced from Russia. I gave an example, pre-Boris, of Corbyn saying he accepts it came from Russia and an either/or as to which group of Russians, the state or the crooks, were to blame. His "let's wait on the evidence" was aimed purely at distinguishing between those two conclusions. Nowhere did I say Corbyn said the same thing as Boris, just that he put the origin as Russia before Boris' feck up (and thus wasn't influenced by it in coming to his conclusion).
But now we hear the experts saying that they are not sure that it did come from Russia. It probably did but they can't prove it.
No, they have said they can't prove it based on the chemistry, and that it isn't in their remit to do so. They have identified it positively as a novichok, which the Russian government had denied the existence of just a couple of weeks ago (as well as also saying Porton Down created it for us to poison the Skripals because...Brexit.)
Of course it would be. If they could prove that it was produced in Russia they would be expected to do so. The idea that the Government wouldn't want them to prove that if they could is ridicules.
But if they could they would.
I'll go further and say that the British Government in the guise of our foreign secretary has actually claimed that Portland Down categorically confirmed that the chemical came from Russia. If it wasn't in their mandate why did BoJo say that they had confirmed it?
The idea that BoJo could become our PM is frightening.
Another point. BoJo made the Government look stupid. If they had anything else to prove that they din't base their argument on the Portland Down lie they would have rolled it out to prove that wasn't all there is.
He didn’t just do that though - he also proposed it might have been the Russian mafia that did it. So no, he wasn’t just asking for facts, he was expressing scepticsm of Russian state involvement and advancing a small conspiracy theory of his own.
Theresa May suggested that, Corbyn allowed the line of inquiry in the investigation, as anyone would.
Ok, so checking Hansard, Teresa May outlined what was known at the time, invited the Russians to respond saying it was either state sponsored or had lost control of their weapons, but followed it with a summary that made it clear she suspected it was the former, and why.
Corbyn’s response was: to ask for evidence, suggest robust dialogue with Russia that would reduce rather than inflame tensions, and castigate the tories Russian donations.
That he misjudged parliaments mood was widely reported the next day.
In her subseqent statement, May said the Russians had given no credible answer to whether they’d lost control, and concluded it was a deliberate attack. Corbyns response was again to ask for evidence and ask again if govt thought it was negligence, what we were doing about it with OPCW. Then he made a jibe about cuts to diplomats.
On both occasions, the govt made it clear they thought it was a state sponsored attack. On both occasions Corbyn largely sat on the fence and tried to score party political points. You might regard this as evidence of a sceptical mastermind at work. I regard it as weakness.
Update: Russia’s just said it won’t accept the OPCWs findings away, which isn’t a surprise to me, but might be to Corbyn etc.
Weak as opposed to what? Specifically. What would a strong leader of the opposition do?
Offer to personally ride the first nuke aimed at Moscow, like the end of Dr Strangelove.
In the absence of a real sound theory as to what happend you can't just call everything a conspiracy theory that you don't like or find improbable.
I too assume it was the Russian intelligence service in some capacity. But I don't assume it because of any sound evidence that has been revealed to the public, I just assume it based on past experience. To a certain degree it doesn't even matter (to me) anymore, with all the fecking around putin has done in the west he can't complain if we blame him for everything that we can't explain, and with attacks like these it's always possible that they'll never be explainable/ that there won't be satisfying evidence.
And stop being a vegetarian.
A strong leader of the opposition would use it to rise to the occasion, by coming across as a PM in waiting, eg as someone whose first concern was trying to protect their country better than the Tories could. At minimum you show a statesman-like united front against the aggressor deploying chemical weapons in your country. You don't equivocate or score party political points. That sort of thing comes later, if needed.
Fair enough, I probably over stepped it with accusing Corbyn of peddling conspiracy theories. It's why I went back to the Hansard record, above. He's still useless, mind.
This is just a bunch of cliches.
The thing is that there's no real benefit to the country Corbyn pushing the importance of any slither of doubt Russia was responsible. There is a benefit to the country to oppose Brexit, but he won't.
How many times does this needs saying - opposing Brexit would destroy any chance of Labour getting into power.
It’s electability. Which Corbyn hasn’t got.
He's been elected in every general election since 1983.
So basically you want the leader of the opposition to not oppose? To ignore the government's haste in favour of some rising bulldog soundbites?
So, other than absolutely not questioning the Russian influence in the political agenda in this country, you would like him to do what? How does one appear statesmen-like and protect our country? What was his play, exactly? What is it which he didn't do, which would have not been what he did, but would be better than what the Tories did?
Haste?
Sometimes the job of the leader of the opposition is to look like a PM in waiting, ie as prime ministerial than the PM. That doesn’t mean sub churchillian cliches, but it does mean seeking a bit of parliamentary unity in the face of a threat, and looking authoritative. I don’t think the correct initial response was to attempt to pick holes in the PMs statement, no. That stuff can come later.
I realise the quality of our political leaders is really low at the moment so it’s hard to see what proper good looks like, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on Corbyn. He’d be found out in a m9ment in a real crisis.
Last edited:
The impression he gave in his first response was he was more concerned with giving the govt a hard time, rather the likely perpetrators of the attack. That’s fine if you are leading a 6th form debating team. It’s insufficent in a potential PM.
A question for you. What was the more authoritative response to the unfolding events? May’s first statement to parliament? Or Corbyn’s?
Last edited:
You know full well what I mean. You can be electable to a narrow caucus and unelectable to a broad one. A general election is a broad one with different dynamics.