The Labour Party

Boris Johnson has now agreed to send the Novochok sample to the “international organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons” for investigation as Corbyn asked the Government to do.

It takes courage to say what you honestly feel, even when you are fully aware that you will be pilloried for it - including by some of your friends and colleagues.

We have been here before, where those who object to statements being made and actions being taken on the basis of insufficient or suspect evidence, are reviled and spoken of as cowards, traitors and fools.

If there is an attempted murder, there is usually a careful examination of all the events surrounding it - what happened before and after the incident, where did it occur and how was it carried out, who are the individuals that are suspected of having carried out the attack, is there evidence to indicate that they committed the crime on behalf of another person or organisation, etc. etc. Even what appear to be fairly open and shut cases of attempted murder/murder usually take weeks for forensic evidence to be obtained and examined, detailed witness statements taken, etc etc.

Are you proposing that state endorsed assassinations should follow the same process as (for example) a car crash where someone dies? Just trying to work out what the crux of your argument is here Eloethan.
Personally, I don't know what the process is when there's an assassination attempt on an ex-spy. Perhaps there is one and it's being followed - I doubt any of us are in a position to say.

Plays into May’s hands to look stern, strong and stable.

As opposed to spineless, uncertain, unpatriotic and hedging your bets - which was Corbyn's initial response to the Prime Minister's approach to the Russian's use of nerve agents on British soil?

Theresa May has been restrained in her condemnation and has not rushed headlong into a sparring match with Russia, but she does want answers and rightly so.

But treating the incident as anything less than an outrageous aggression looks weak. It signals that the use of a chemical weapon on British streets could somehow be excusable.

Mrs May was right to set out a measured retaliatory response. - The Guardian.

Oppositions have a duty to challenge prime ministers in the most critical circumstances. Nations should not act in haste over such issues. But Mr Corbyn’s reluctance to share Mrs May’s basic analysis of the Salisbury incident made him look eager to exonerate a hostile power. - The Guardian

The leader of the opposition’s response to the prime minister was dispiriting.

"Jeremy Corbyn invited Mrs May to acquiesce to Russia’s requests that a sample be sent to Moscow for verification – on the supposition that the Kremlin might then honestly try to match it with its own stores."

He sounded too keen to find another explanation for the use of the nerve agent novichok in the attack. - The Guardian.


hedge your bets

to protect yourself against loss by supporting more than one possible result or both sides in a competition

That's a phrase just made for Corbyn imo.

Absolutely Day6. That's why the motion proposed by the Labour backbenchers specifically used the word 'unequivocal'. Because Corbyns hedging was so transparent.
Sky ran a poll - most people think he's doing a bad job.
(and here's the data, before I'm inundated with questions about how valid it was in an attempt to distract interactive.news.sky.com/RUSSIATABS150318v3.pdf)

Boris Johnson has now agreed to send the Novochok sample to the “international organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons” for investigation as Corbyn asked the Government to do.

That's brilliant Mostly, and obviously what needs to be done. I think we would find we couldn't keep those countries who are so far supporting us onside if this didn't happen.

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/organisation-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons-87th-executive-council-session-statement-on-the-salisbury-incident

But Corbyn said today the attack was from Russia

"I think we would find we couldn't keep those countries who are so far supporting us onside."

That's your opinion GG.
The countries who rushed to support the UK did it on the basis of the outrageous attack and because a chemical weapon was used. No questions asked - they supported the PM and the UK.

I hope you are not suggesting those countries might be doing a Corbyn and sitting on the fence - because they haven't. Their support was instant and unequivocal, not limited, conditional and begrudging.

Corbyn has been shamed and condemned.

Corbyn in the Guardian this evening:

Jeremy Corbyn has warned Theresa May not to “rush way ahead of the evidence” over the Salisbury poisoning, in what he called the “fevered” atmosphere of Westminster.

Doubling down on the cautious stance that infuriated some of his backbenchers on Wednesday, Corbyn used an article in the Guardian to urge the government to take a “calm, measured” approach, and work through international institutions.

“This horrific event demands first of all the most thorough and painstaking criminal investigation, conducted by our police and security services.

“To rush way ahead of the evidence being gathered by the police, in a fevered parliamentary atmosphere, serves neither justice nor our national security,” he said.

Corbyn warned against a “McCarthyite intolerance of dissent” over Russia. “Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption,” he says

Quite calm and rational I think.

I have heard nothing fevered so far
The USA, France, Germany, Canada, Australia agree that there is a compelling case against Russia.

May was certaintly not fevered yesterday, she was calm, explained as much as she could publicly, if anyone was fevered it was Corbyn desperate to defend Russia

Trump's support was not unequivocal.
He said if it is found to be Russia . That's not unequivocal.

All thos MPs shouting at Corbyn seemed to me to be quite hot and bothered.

That's your opinion GG

What a silly, silly post! I started the sentence "I think" which means exactly that I am presenting it as my opinion and not a fact; the above comment is ridiculous. It would be nice if those of you who insist on arrogantly throwing opinions at us as if they were facts would do the same thing occasionally.

And then you post a misquote, clipping where it suits you and therefore making it not a quote - which is how you present it - but falsely attributing something which suits your argument. Had you posted the whole sentence, and not felt you could do what you choose with what I said, anyone reading your post could see you are making up the whole point. In order to cover this up you simply misrepresented me - lying is not a way to make a point in a discussion.

You know that Seamus Milne wrote the article, mostlyharmless. It's his style - there are a few tell-tale signs there. Corbyn's probably been over the allotment all day.

Lots of “braying” in the House of Commons the other day and plenty of feverishness in the newspaper headlines.

You don't "know" that Primrose. What is the point of the post?

Corbyn is in Cumbria.

... and the Defence Secretary on manoeuvres for the top job Mostly and the soft (almost squidgy) left thinking they have the opportunity to oust J Corbyn. Oh how short sighted some can be ...

You know things are bad when the British defence secretary speaks in an official capacity at a time of heightened political tension and tells another country to ‘go away

Read more: metro.co.uk/2018/03/15/best-responses-gavin-williamson-telling-russia-go-away-shut-7390164/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

I like Tim Stanley's response, mostly.
And John Rentoul saying it's completely unacceptable, it should be shut up and go away!

I hope he managed to get a seat on the train back to Euston Jen!

Don’t panic!

Quite right dj. Got to get these things in the right order.