Westminstenders: From Russia with Love

[RedToothBrush]

Things just got scary.

The colony of US puppet state or a vassel state of the EU?

Why not just let market forces take their course and let Russia buy the UK?

How did we get to stories of spies and mafia who buy politicians?

Just who are our enemies and allies?

Won't someone think of the effect on house prices in Salisbury?

Try not to don your foil hat, brace yourself and resist shouting 'money laundering too loud'.

More turbulence ahead.

Brexit still seems like such a cracking idea doesn't it?

communist or no is irrelevant - corbyn was elected as was may - why is it OK for may to be in possession of intelligence that benefits the far right and the tory backers (also allegedly Russian!) yet not OK for corbyn?
if the intelligence could be shared with France and the US (with alleged direct contact to Russia) why not corbyn?

See I feel caught between two forces. I KNOW I'm being manipulated, but I also know that my feeling the other way is also not unjustified.

I do believe May will manipulate it for all shes worth. I believe she's a fascist.

But I also believe that Corbyn isn't a better option. And I believe he's a stalinist. One who is counting on knowing that no matter how bad he is and how much left leaning people hate him, that he's still the better option than May the fascist, and thats manipulating too. And I don't like the sheer arrogance and disregard for democratic engagement within that.

I've wildly been pulled between the two in which I feel is the most awful over the last few months.

Both have a total disregard for the people they are supposed to represent. Its an irrelevance to them. Its about ideology not democracy. Taking back control seems like a euphemism for totalitarian and authoritarian opportunitists.

I think the agenda narrative and who is in control of it has switched from domestic policy and the nhs to foreign policy and in doing so the balance that power has returned from Labour and switched to the Cons again.

How long that lasts remains to be seen. May threw it away once at the GE already. She lacks awareness of how far to push.

Robert wright @ RKWinvisibleman
The bizarre thing about the media conspiracy theories of both right and left is how utterly at odds anyone who works in the news media knows many of them to be with the world we inhabit.

If one works in a newspaper or broadcast media, it's a daily struggle to get the product out without, for example, big spelling mistakes, blank spaces where stories should be and so on.

It's daily seat-of-the-pants stuff.

The conspiracists, meanwhile, imagine TV producers have leisure to sit around trying to work out how best to tweak a picture of Jeremy Corbyn so that his hat looks a little more Russian.

I can pretty much guarantee that at the time the producers were grateful mainly that they had a picture of the right person against the appointed backdrop and that was accomplished only at the last minute.

There are certainly many newspaper stories that tell stories from biased perspectives and as such often give a misleading impression.

People unconsciously apply all kinds of lazy paradigms to stories when a different approach might be more accurate.

But the idea that anyone has the time to inject into reporting the kind of subtle, coded bias that the conspiracists imagine really does leave anyone who knows what the job is like slack-jawed.

I do like the @50 appeal people. Their focus; win or lose is due legal and constitutional process and that the constitutional norms must be followed, and the correct processes adhered to.
In this case, Corbyn, as leader of the opposition, no matter what his political beliefs or failings, is a member of the privy council and info on the Salisbury attempted murders should have been shared.
To weaponise security information and then exploit it for political gain is typical of only one type of regime.
And she's using us as collateral.

Meanwhile, elsewhere, mucho discussion of hats.

One of my great worries is the erosion of the centre and the lack of choice.

I have grave doubts about how Corbyn would manage as a PM. I really do. He does not show himself as collaborative, for a start. He does not work with the whole of the Labour Party and the group around him actively discourages cross-party collaboration. That's not good enough and points to a very, very worrying leadership style.

He's given us a lot of examples of this. It's not a secret.

And we have, right now, a government - led by May - showing us, right now, in real time, the damage that such a style of government does.

It's why we're still facing a hugely damaging Brexit.

The very last thing we need is more of the same.

Our options are ridiculously poor.

We need to oppose this. Not simply - desperately - try and work out which option might be least damaging.

If we give up on our imagination to demand better, we're lost.

I want an end to austerity and a government led by someone who will govern genuinely well, and genuinely in the interests of the majority of the UK - not some narrow agenda, driven by an ideological cabal.

That is a very minimal ask.

And Brexit, it goes without saying, is not in the interests of the majority of the UK.

The nonsense about the hat (and it is nonsense) is sucking all the air out of any analysis of the social media flooding of lots of disinformation about the Skripal poisoning.

Which we should be looking at - and again, on-line people are trying to identify sources, amplification and transmission routes of this misinformation but it's not getting the traction in public consciousness and mainstream media that it should - because it matters.

It suggests we are learning nothing - in terms of scepticism, criticality, and (crucially) tools for dealing with - what is not an element of public political life post-Referendum, post-Trump.

I'm finding I am increasingly baffled that the weaponisation of political cynicism/nihilism is so effective. It doesn't lead to a criticality as regards media stories and conspiracy stories - it feeds them. It doesn't lead to a conscious, slow and thoughtful engagement with political life - it leads to disengagement, or (worse) an engagement with extreme and authoritarian forms.

You have to take a principled stand on this matter RTB. No matter how you feel about fascism or Stalin, the basic principle of courtesy among parliamentarians is the one to fight for.

If Corbyn is in fact a traitor, or Milne, then charge them. Otherwise, this is a shameless act by Theresa May, a deliberate body blow to the parliamentary system, and probably more of a danger to the future of British democracy than anything Corbyn (or even Milne) could throw at it.

The PM cannot suggest by her decisions that she believes the leader of the opposition to be a traitor. The government cannot ride roughshod over traditions involving the leader of the opposition no matter what they think his views are, and no matter what the government's beliefs are.

MPs must be loyal to the system or we are left with - well, we are left with a government that seeks to push a Repeal Bill that will fundamentally change the UK through the House of Lords by means of packing it with Tories. We are left with a government that will throw anything under the bus for party advantage, a government that stood idly by while the newspapers that support it heaped scorn on the judiciary. We are left with a party that bribes another in order to remain in power. We are witnesses to the destruction of the centre.

Allowing, aiding and abetting the degrading of the parliamentary system must be condemned.

It is not OK to say what May did was fine/understandable/reasonable because Corbyn or his closest friends are commies.

That is like saying (sorry, Godwin's Law) "the Nazis were bad, but..."

You work within a certain system that has been developed over hundreds of years, and it's not perfect but it serves its purpose, more or less. It functions because there are certain rules and traditions and a huge amount of civility as it is understood in the British context, and above all good faith oiling its wheels. You take that away and you destroy the machine, and again, while not perfect, the machine matters because the machine allows the principles of democracy to be exercised in the real world.

I have no idea why labour is getting so excited about hats, when there are one or two other things going on, cat. Nihilism is just the ticket for the fashes.

What's more British than an EU Elvis impersonator on a trike, in Wales?
Cheery image to end on.

To be absolutely fair, sharing intel with the leader of the opposition was a precedent - a courtesy rather than usual protocol - extended by Cameron to Miliband for reasons of political manouevring (trying to push him into a position).

There are good reasons for not sharing intel with leaders of the opposition - where do you stop? Would you end up having to share restricted information with leaders of every party in Parliament? Even, potentially, quite dodgy ones? Perhaps you would. Someone, somewhere will argue that.

Sharing intel with other national leaders - who you are pressing to execute national actions - is another matter.

We don't know - and there are good reasons for that - what information was shared at the two meetings (the one attended by Corbyn and the one not attended by Corbyn . And we, crucially, don;t know what intel was witheld from the second meeting. It may not have been significant. We don;t know.

Having said all that, I am firmly of the opinion May should have followed Cameron's precedent. If only because my strong suspicion is that it wouldn't have altered Corbyn's response, quite frankly.

Oh, and I agree that it was corrosive for democratic process for May not to have shared the information.

It was corrosive in the initial act - and tells us, again, what sort of government style we are all suffering under right now - and it has proved to be corrosive in its aftermath.

Corrosive - and that is the very last thing we need right now.

Honestly. We deserve better, far better - and we need far better.

woman

Yes.

And you have reminded me that one thing we can do is stay focused on the big stuff. Positively. And with a degree of optimism. And with a refusal to fall for this demand to 'pick a side, right or wrong' and refuse conversation.

The Harding and Roth argument in the Guardian article shared by Mistigri is half baked and full of holes.

The election result in Russia is a foregone conclusion. Putin doesn't need an attack on a former spy to win. Putin doesn't need any more decoration to the scenario of everyone ganging up on Russia. He is not desperately clinging to power.

Former senior Foreign Office adviser...'“Moscow’s goal is to demonstrate the UK’s weakness and isolation and to drive a wedge between us and other countries."' - exactly how does this achieve that end? Even Trump has made some noises to the effect that this was not a good thing. If Moscow is all in favour of Brexit how does the solidarity of Guy Verhofstadt over the assassination attempt fit in with this theory too? An incident of this sort is almost guaranteed to raise the hackles of Europe.

"If May fails to react adequately, she would appear weak. If she tries to fight back against Russia, she would discover the limits of collective solidarity," the adviser suggested.'
Sorry again, but Guy Verhofstadt has scuppered that argument, unless the adviser feels the EU doesn't count.

Why is the presence of Russian emigres in London a sore point for Russia? Why would forcing them out be 'useful and beneficial to Putin'? Many of them are prominent Putin supporters. A detective novelist and Kabuki theatre expert is the author of this theory - maybe Harding and Roth should take up crime fiction too?

Just musing here, but:

Is it possible that Skripal was chosen because his residence close to Porton Down made it handier for British operatives to bump him off? He was an isolated and vulnerable figure - a foreigner and former spy - and demonstrably not given any sort of protection by the Home Office or any security arm. Was TM trying to generate some international outrage on Britain's behalf? Some expression of solidarity and friendliness on the part of the EU? Those results have happened. Was May's government hoping to elicit some shot to the foot response by Corbyn? That has possibly happened too - history will tell - but maybe TM went too far and tried to make sure her mark would behave as hoped by not briefing him. The only real worry that the Tories have is Labour. Hence the incredibly misguided (in hindsight) general election instead of planning for Brexit, after all. Hence all the dog whistling (Corbyn's hat, and all the rest of the attempts to associate him with unsavoury elements - the IRA, the Communists).

Alternatively, was Skripal a double-double agent, somehow turned back to Russian allegiance while in prison there for spying for Britain, and sent to live close to not one but two incredibly sensitive military-scientific installations, Porton Down and Winterbourne Gunner (4 miles from Salisbury, the Defence CBRN Centre, providing training for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear events)?

Porton Down shares its 7,000 acre site with private companies and research labs.

Who works in those places? Did Skripal have any contacts with people working on those sites? Coverage of the incident has mentioned the sleepy, quaint character of Salisbury, but there are two extremely sensitive sites within walking distance and presumably many employees of those sites live in the town.
Why did the Home Office let this former spy - and not just a spy but a double agent - settle so close to such sensitive installations?

@mathanxiety - that conspiracy theory falls on the simple hurdle of the number of people who would need to be involved. The porton ethos and very much that of the scientists working there is defence.
There is total abhorrence of the idea of offensive use of chemical weapons.

cat brilliant posts again.
And red and woman too.

Great post Math I agree with this:
MPs must be loyal to the system or we are left with - well, we are left with a government ... that will throw anything under the bus for party advantage, a government that stood idly by while the newspapers that support it heaped scorn on the judiciary. We are left with a party that bribes another in order to remain in power. We are witnesses to the destruction of the centre.

Everything else both Russian and Corbyn related is just confusing me tbh. Trying to just apply simple logic:

• On the Russian murders, I buy into the if it quacks, looks and waddles like a duck point. There are precedents for spies being assassinated like this. ( Despite May's father's proximity to the Bodkin Adams business I really don't think murder is her style!)

• With respect to not sharing info with the leader of the opposition I don't think this is to do with a view of Corbyn. The same approach would be applied to any opposition leader. This govt's whole approach involves secrecy. for example, the recent non disclosure agreements. The endless we do / do not have impact assessments. Or the months of if we had impact assessments we can't disclose them as it will prejudice our ( non existent) negotiating position.

Compared to the EU making everything publicly available.

It all fits in with that Olivia's insightful link about the difference between liberal and conservative approaches to fear. Assuming the research is accurate. The more fearful you are the more likely you are to be secretive.

cat here's one thread looking at who is propagating what on twitter with regards to skripal (you may have seen this already)

Conspirador Norteño
@conspirator0
In the wake of the #Novichok nerve agent attack on Sergei #Skripal and his daughter in #Salisbury, a variety of suggestions that anyone other than Vladimir Putin’s government is responsible have been circulating on Twitter. #Whataboutism

twitter.com/conspirator0/status/974418361504317441

mathanxiety - Evidence? (to quote an awful lot of Corbyn followers who also take mad conspiracy theories at face value)

I've really got to take issue with this:
Hence all the dog whistling (Corbyn's hat, and all the rest of the attempts to associate him with unsavoury elements - the IRA, the Communists).
Er - you do know that Corbyn wears that hat rather a lot (and it features on an awful lot of pro-Corbyn merchandise, ironically often altered to look more Russian/Soviet) and Corbyn himself has chosen to associate with the IRA etc. It isn't propaganda to discredit him - it is actual fact. Look at Andrew Murray, for example.

Murder is a weapon Putin's "associates" use, to keep control, even when their position is dominant.
e.g. in Russia itself

The independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, set up with support from Gorbachev with his Nobel Peace Prize money, has had 6 journalists murdered since 2001

One of the journalists was Anna Politkovskaya, who was first poisoned -seems a favourite method - and later murdered in the lift of her block of flats.

Novaya Gazeta had to close down its online site after sustained DDOS and bot attacks - the troll farm again.

On the Andrew Married show at 9 am is a Russian guy who is saying same theory as math.
Just one question, with all of the UK to settle in why Salisbury??

Stalin murdered up to 60 million people, definitely on a par with Hitler

Anyone who tries to whitewash and excuse this - as Seamus Milne has done in the past - is every bit as bad as a Neo-Nazi excusing Hitler and downplaying the Holocaust.

Seamus Milne is one of Corbyn closest associates, one of his confidants
Quite a few others like him in Corbyn's circle, who are Stalin fans, Russia fans
Could Corbyn reliably promise not to tell any of his dodgy associates, or make a bad slip of the tongue in front of them ?

No wonder May wouldn't share secret intelligence info with him
The intelligence services probably strongly objected

• they are know to be very worried about the prispect of JC taking power

If this is leaked to the Russians, they can trace back to any British agents in Russia
This is a common way agents get exposed: politicians use the information they provide ad it gets traced back
Bang - agents arrested, tortured (quite routine in Russia), Russia gains info about all that agent has sent to the UK, also about any other agents / contacts in their chain.

If the info comes via GCHQ & tech means, it is easier for Russia to block future leakage, if they know the precise info

sos The UK is a small country geographically.

There are all sorts of defence bases, intelligence sites, critical sites like nuclear power stations and weapons reseach, weapons manufacturing … within an easy commute of much of the country,

unless one chooses to live say on a remote Scottish island

As I said, I am just musing. (Seems the Twittersphere is too - an indication perhaps of lack of trust in the government?)
I think there is something dodgy going on here. The whole thing looks too neat, and the use of the old Soviet nerve agent is too pat. I don't think involvement by British operatives can be dismissed purely on the basis that the British are the Good Guys and it would have taken too many people to carry it out. Are they really? What is to stop some other branch of security or intelligence using a nerve agent available at Porton Down?
And the Guardian article was ridiculous.

The Hat picture was chosen to underscore the implication that he is a commie sympathiser. There are lots of photos of Corbyn wearing other headgear, and none at all. It's too much of a coincidence that the photo of him wearing a Russian style hat was chosen at this point in time. A cheap shot.

The comments Corbyn made on the necessity of talking to the Provos were eventually recognised as signposts out of stalemate and towards peace - hence eventually the GFA. But he was vilified for talking to the Provos himself at the time, and has been ever since, regardless of how sensible and how much of a realist he turned out to be. The comments and his contacts with the Provos have been used as propaganda, to discredit his judgement and his political leanings.

He didn't 'choose to associate with the IRA'. He saw another side to the conflict in Northern Ireland, one that was never really shown in Britain, he listened to the side that was getting all the bad press, and offered his conclusions.

Well seems a bit of a coincidence

We need to look at history to understand the present situation

There is a long history of the USSR - and now Russia - murdering its opponents & "traitors" spectacularly, with poison being a favourite weapon

• it's a long draw-out painful death, which frightens potential dissidents into staying in line.

Fascist and communist dictatorships don't think like democracies:
They might choose to murder any enemy if they think they can get away with it
They don't have to have a vital national need to do so
They think it increases their power

Importantly, the Russia public enjoys seeing traitors killed
It makes Putin even more popular
Makes him look strong and diverts attention from how crap the Russian economy is
diverts attention from the low life expectancy ordinary Russians have, in comparison to their hated Western enemies.

Democracies will kill its enemies, but only when they are a danger and usually after much agonising
They don't have any history of hunting down traitors to kill just to make a point
The public would not support a govt that assassinates its opponents by a deliberately painful method
Look at the anger against drone strikes, even against active terrorists, not the retired agents like Russia has been killing.