- Why did May withhold information she was allowed to withhold?
a) Yes it could be for her own political gain.
b) It could also be because she was concerned about Corbyn's previous track record and political relationships with foreign countries. Or she was concerned about his relationship with Russian Sympathisers - namely Milne (more on that later).
People do believe that Corbyn was a foreign agent. Rightly or wrongly.
What if May is one?
Saying that 'anyone with a sense of fairness would think deliberately withholding info is dodgy' misses the point that a lot of people have a distrust of Corbyn and question his foreign policy - including amongst Labour MPs, never mind members or the wider public.
I think there is an argument for both a and b here.
- If May used this for her own personal gain, then Corbyn walked into it.
Corbyn might have had a point if he thought that information had been withheld via the security clearance on the privy council. However he didn't make that point in the Commons. He was happy not to make the point explicitly against May's judgment over that. Why?
Therefore Corbyn either deliberately walked into the situation for his own political gain, or he is predictable to the point that it can be manipulated and that's what May did.
If its the latter, Corbyn is by default politically naïve or vulnerable. He should have seen the situation coming. That is a major weakness should he become PM, that could be manipulated.
If its the former, then he also manipulated the situation.
- May might be a fucking nasty malicious piece of work. On this I do not disagree. I think she lacks any heart whatsoever. But then she's not alone in that respect in terms of national leaders. And this is what any PM is going to be dealing with.
Can you be a 'Nice Guy' when it comes to Foreign Policy and dealing with certain leaders?
If you can't deal with May and the Tory propaganda machine, can you deal with foreign leaders who don't give a shit about their citizens or the truth and for whom power alone is everything?
How do you ensure you really aren't a 'useful idiot'?
- Hat Gate. Most of the shocked reaction had fuck all to do with a dodgy photo on Newsnight.
All the MP reaction - both Labour and Con - and the news coverage came well before 10.30pm.
Hat gate is retrospective damage control. I do agree, there is a point here and the BBC DID use that image in a way that is dubious.
However, you also have to take into context that Corbyn and McDonnell have never previously had a problem doing speeches to crowds where individuals have flown soviet flags. In the mind of the public, Corbyn has already long been associated with that imagery in actual photos.
Corbyn is also well aware of Milne's position on Russia
Lets talk about Milne. Its important:
Milne started off after uni as the Business Manager of Straight Left.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_Left
He's written books, criticising the British Security Services, and clearly has a long running issue with them, which may or may not be justified but this needs to be noted.
In 2001 he wrote this piece:
www.theguardian.com/world/2001/aug/16/russia.comment
It rather romanticises the idea of Stalin. And whilst Milne isn't wrong about how hard its been for Russia since the fall of the State, he also neglects to mention a rather large and relevant part of the story in his romanticising.
Then there's this article from 2015 when Milne became the Labour Party Spokesman.
www.politico.eu/article/stalinist-voice-of-labour-seumas-milne-jeremy-corbyn-putin/
Again it mentions how Milne down plays Stalin. If someone were in denial of the holocaust we'd be up in arms about it. But deaths under Stalin? Naaaa.... that's ALLLLLL FINE.
Then there's this from 2011 - about the resignation of Gott from the Guardian and the Soviet defector Oleg Gordievsky and 'useful idiots'.
ukmediawatch.org/2011/10/10/kgb-agents-loved-the-guardian/
KGB agents loved the Guardian
Then there's this from 2016 in the Mail
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3614553/Criticism-Putin-censored-Corbyn-aide-Seumas-Milne-blocks-anti-Russia-briefing-note-Labour-MPs.html
It stated the following:
Jeremy Corbyn’s hard-Left spin chief censored a Labour document on the EU referendum to remove all references to Russian aggression.
The Mail on Sunday has been told that Seumas Milne, the pro-Kremlin head of communications for the Labour leader, became angry when he saw a briefing note which had been prepared for the party’s MPs telling them what ‘lines to take’ on the debate.
The memo said the MPs should include arguments about security when opposing Brexit – and in particular that leaving the EU would weaken the West’s ability to stand up to Vladimir Putin.
Now its possible this is all part of a right wing capitalist plot against Milne. BUT at the same time, you have to be a Stalin Purge denier and you have to also concede this is long running dating back to Milne's university days in the 1970s (noting here that Milne was a Philosophy, Politics and Economics student at Oxford like pretty much all the 'establishment' he rallies against).
This isn't some new political issue that's comes from nowhere. Its long standing and pre-dates Milne being part of the Labour leadership.
In that context, and given everything Milne has said - including his positions on Georgia and Ukraine - May would have a bloody hard time justifying giving Corbyn who is so closely allied to Milne, top level security clearance over an issue relating to Russia.
Milne has form for justifying anything relating to the Soviet Union and Russia for decades. To the point that some think he, himself, is an agent. (No idea if this is justified, but its certainly been said).
How could May say to the right wing media or parts of her party that she'd given Corbyn top clearance?
At that point you ask, is she covering her arse politically every bit as much as she might be manipulating the situation?
The answer could easily be both.
I'm not setting out here to justify May, nor to smear Corbyn, but the dynamics here over Corbyn's friends and allegiances - rightly or wrongly - can not be over looked either.
The history is conflict of ideology, that is, in this situation quite difficult to ignore.
The real motivations and political agendas of both May and Corbyn might not be totally visible but regardless of what the truth is, I can see reasons why giving Corbyn that clearance would be problematic in more than one scenario.
All it is, is yet another manifestation of the polarisation of politics in the UK where the leader of the opposition is at such odds to the PM that national security is even entering the equation.