https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/973949652428042240

Usual suspects or a wider group, time will tell.

Looks like the moderates are in open rebellion. they're creating a motion blaming outright Russia

Tom Newton Dunn
‏VERIFIED ACCOUNT @tnewtondunn
4 mins4 minutes ago

I am told by a senior Labour source that two shadow ministers are now considering their positions after Jeremy Corbyn's refusal to blame Russia for #Salisbury today.

Slackbladder said:

Laura Kuenssberg
‏
Rumour that some Labour shadow front benchers might resign

Again? Change the record, Labour MPs.

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

TheValiant said:

david_herdson said:

(This does give me my chance to argue that we've either already had WW3 or we've not yet had WW2).

Am I right in thinking that in the latter case, you argue that WWI was a European civil war, and WWII was therefore WWI?

What about the former?

Yes. I'd argue that either:

- A 'world war' really has to be a global conflict, in which case there's only ever been one: 1937-45 (or 1941-45, if you prefer the actual global period).

or

- A 'world war' is one that involves the majority of the global powers fighting to the effective limits of their military and financial capacity (and those limits have to be understood in their historical contexts), even if the area within which the fighting takes place is more localised. On that basis, I'd argue that there've been at least four, with the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic Wars forming one, and the Seven Years War being another, though you can potentially make arguments for others too.

Why would the Seven Years war not count under your first definition? It was fought on 5 of the 7 continents which is only one less than WW2. It also fulfils your second definition of course.

I'd argue that the scale of the fighting in the Seven Years War outside Europe was insufficent to count as a general conflict: it was essentially a European war carried on out of area, rather than an equivalent of the European war. The contrast is with the number of Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians and so on who fought in WW2, for example.

I suppose I think that is only a matter of the technology available at the time although I take your point. I am just not sure how it can be differentiated.

FWIW, I'd argue that both the Seven Years War and the 1792-1815 War *should* count, and that WWII was really WWIV (at least - there's also an argument for the Thirty Years War and the overlapping War of Spanish Succession / Great Northern War, though I'd say not as both were European / Europe-plus rather than genuinely global.

But to put the case against, it'd be that whereas in WW2, the non-European countries mobilised to near the maximum of their capability, in the Seven Years War, the Indian and American troops raised / allies gathered were much more limited.

Mr. Jim, there may be roubles ahead...

Ishmael_Z said:

Gardenwalker said:

Your comments are not accurate.

As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.

What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.

I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).

Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.

"Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm." Tellingly careful wording, because if there is a Western alliance, it's NATO, but you daren't call it that because doing so makes it all too obvious how wrong the claim is. What weakens NATO, perhaps fatally, is Donald Trump; the EU doesn't come in to it. Not saying it won't in 20 years time if NATO leaves a gap that needs filling, but there is nothing about the EU at present that suggests that it would want to be or be capable of being a proper military superpower.

No.

The Western alliance, at least what I mean by it, is an informal grouping of advanced, liberal democracies.

Underpinning it is primarily US military might, along with a host of security treaties - certainly the most important is NATO - but agreements like Five Eyes play their role too.

But it’s not restricted to military and security measures. There are a whole host of trading, financial, and cultural institutions underpinning the whole thing. Undoubtedly the EU is one of the most important parts of the architecture.

Of course the EU is not a defensive treaty, but it is an essential forum for trade, economic and foreign policy alignment on the continent.

I rather give NATO (and US power) the ultimate credit for peace in Europe these last fifty years. But if I look at the advance of wealth and democracy in Eastern Europe especially it is impossible to avoid the role of the EU.

But we are walking away from that.
Whether the EU measures up to its ambition is one thing, but to dismiss it as worthless and our involvement as futile is really ignorant.

Corbyn has a supporter.
https://twitter.com/Arron_banks/status/973946459342110720

The level of hysterical froth and the reaction of the likes of Ruth Smeeth are a very good guide to how badly Corbyn is doing. The amount of spittle is usually inversely proportional to the real world result.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jim, there may be roubles ahead...

Mr Dancer indeed

kle4 said:

ToryJim said:

Comrade Livingstone shilling for Putin.... https://twitter.com/journostephen/status/973940719382597634?s=21

What a liar he is - the news pieces which did background on Crimea were pretty clear.

No, he is perfectly correct that Crimea was once part of Russia. It was transferred to the Ukraine by the USSR in 1954.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Slackbladder said:

Laura Kuenssberg
‏
Rumour that some Labour shadow front benchers might resign over the leader's statement today - let's wait and see - certainly a lot of anger around - uneasy truce in Labour party since election has been trashed by different instincts over Skripal case

Today may well go down as the start of the end of Corbyn and the return to a sensible centre left labour party with all the benefits that would follow for the good of the Country

If Putin causes that, then our irony-meters are all going to need recalibrating......

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Slackbladder said:

Laura Kuenssberg
‏
Rumour that some Labour shadow front benchers might resign over the leader's statement today - let's wait and see - certainly a lot of anger around - uneasy truce in Labour party since election has been trashed by different instincts over Skripal case

Today may well go down as the start of the end of Corbyn and the return to a sensible centre left labour party with all the benefits that would follow for the good of the Country

People will forget all the furore by next week, popping up occasionally whenever updates on Salisbury occur. I happen to think even if Russia is not responsible then from what we've been told of the evidence it is reasonable to demand answers from them, and they and their supporters pouting and throwing toys out of the pram (pretending it is all anti-russian hysteria, as if everyone really loves cold war fantasies, which is bollocks) and despite their words in effect refusing to cooperate will not change that. BUT there will be people who agree with the man, outrage will calm, and generally disruption is not liked, so sooner or later people will not be as angered by a purportedly more 'reasoned' response.

JWisemann said:

kle4 said:

ToryJim said:

Comrade Livingstone shilling for Putin.... https://twitter.com/journostephen/status/973940719382597634?s=21

What a liar he is - the news pieces which did background on Crimea were pretty clear.

No, he is perfectly correct that Crimea was once part of Russia. It was transferred to the Ukraine by the USSR in 1954.

How is it relevant it was once part of Russia?

So was the whole of Ukraine.

JWisemann said:

kle4 said:

ToryJim said:

Comrade Livingstone shilling for Putin.... https://twitter.com/journostephen/status/973940719382597634?s=21

What a liar he is - the news pieces which did background on Crimea were pretty clear.

No, he is perfectly correct that Crimea was once part of Russia. It was transferred to the Ukraine by the USSR in 1954.

That is not what he was lying about - I know that Crimea was once part of Russia. Do you know how I know that? Because it was mentioned plenty of times in news reports at the time. I am sure it was not mentioned every single time the Crimea came up, but it was clearly reported. And he will know that. So he is a liar.

I think sometimes you react too quickly to defend what you think is one attack on Russia, without realising that what is being said is something else. He has made a very specific claim about the media, which will be easy to refute I have no doubt.

JWisemann said:

kle4 said:

ToryJim said:

Comrade Livingstone shilling for Putin.... https://twitter.com/journostephen/status/973940719382597634?s=21

What a liar he is - the news pieces which did background on Crimea were pretty clear.

No, he is perfectly correct that Crimea was once part of Russia. It was transferred to the Ukraine by the USSR in 1954.

Lying about not mentioning it was kle4’s point.

Ishmael_Z said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Your comments are not accurate.

As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.

What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.

I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).

Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.

You can't weaken resolve that doesn't exist.

There is a form of Brexit-ism which suggests that since the EU cannot reform democratically; cannot liberalise when it comes to trade etc - then it is not worth bothering with and we should walk away.

This is a species of that argument.

However, the problems is Europe is not going anywhere; the EU exists. We have to deal with it, trade with it, and partner with it - in or out.

Clearly, we have less influence out.

We had no influence in. Why should we have less out?

When it comes down to it, Brexitism is one long sulk. “We had no influence in.” I mean, really?
The trouble is it can’t be argued with, it’s a faith-based ideology.

When that claim is made in this forum, the shark has truly been jumped.

Not at all.

Brexitism is really a long whinge along the lines that it’s not fair, the Europeans won’t do as we tell them.

That’s why - ideologically - it is primarily nostalgic in focus, mostly supported by the older and less educated, and despite talk of Singapore-on-Sea, decidedly lacking in any concrete vision or practical detail.

By Christ, the Europeans even have to write the exit agreement for us.

JWisemann said:

kle4 said:

ToryJim said:

Comrade Livingstone shilling for Putin.... https://twitter.com/journostephen/status/973940719382597634?s=21

What a liar he is - the news pieces which did background on Crimea were pretty clear.

No, he is perfectly correct that Crimea was once part of Russia. It was transferred to the Ukraine by the USSR in 1954.

Missing the point. He lied when he said that the British media did not mention that Crimea had been part of Russia.

Curious also that you pick out Ruth Smeeth MP in your criticism of the draft EDM. Why her I wonder?

Well there’s a surprise

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/973953560248545281?s=20

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

david_herdson said:

TheValiant said:

david_herdson said:

(This does give me my chance to argue that we've either already had WW3 or we've not yet had WW2).

Am I right in thinking that in the latter case, you argue that WWI was a European civil war, and WWII was therefore WWI?

What about the former?

Yes. I'd argue that either:

- A 'world war' really has to be a global conflict, in which case there's only ever been one: 1937-45 (or 1941-45, if you prefer the actual global period).

or

- A 'world war' is one that involves the majority of the global powers fighting to the effective limits of their military and financial capacity (and those limits have to be understood in their historical contexts), even if the area within which the fighting takes place is more localised. On that basis, I'd argue that there've been at least four, with the French Revolutionary / Napoleonic Wars forming one, and the Seven Years War being another, though you can potentially make arguments for others too.

Why would the Seven Years war not count under your first definition? It was fought on 5 of the 7 continents which is only one less than WW2. It also fulfils your second definition of course.

I'd argue that the scale of the fighting in the Seven Years War outside Europe was insufficent to count as a general conflict: it was essentially a European war carried on out of area, rather than an equivalent of the European war. The contrast is with the number of Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Indians and so on who fought in WW2, for example.

I suppose I think that is only a matter of the technology available at the time although I take your point. I am just not sure how it can be differentiated.

FWIW, I'd argue that both the Seven Years War and the 1792-1815 War *should* count, and that WWII was really WWIV (at least - there's also an argument for the Thirty Years War and the overlapping War of Spanish Succession / Great Northern War, though I'd say not as both were European / Europe-plus rather than genuinely global.

But to put the case against, it'd be that whereas in WW2, the non-European countries mobilised to near the maximum of their capability, in the Seven Years War, the Indian and American troops raised / allies gathered were much more limited.

Again fair comment. I think I do prefer the idea that the 7 Years War and French Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars were world wars, if only because making WW2 into WW4 would make more people ask about the earlier ones and so learn some history.

RobD said:

JWisemann said:

kle4 said:

ToryJim said:

Comrade Livingstone shilling for Putin.... https://twitter.com/journostephen/status/973940719382597634?s=21

What a liar he is - the news pieces which did background on Crimea were pretty clear.

No, he is perfectly correct that Crimea was once part of Russia. It was transferred to the Ukraine by the USSR in 1954.

Lying about not mentioning it was kle4’s point.

On an entirely unrelated point, it is amazing how those with such incredible vision and clarity to see to the truth of a situation at all times, in the face of unremitting hostility from the masses, can miss what is directly in front of them sometimes.

Cyclefree said:

JWisemann said:

As with everything else over the last few years, I will be proven correct and the buffoons of the Westminster bubble and their wannabes here will be proven idiotic once again.

Just because a few recalcitrant members of the PLP - who seem practically sexually excited by war, any war, and will largely be deselected by next election - are sucking up to May’s ludicrous and hysterical grandstanding, doesn’t mean that there aren’t a large sensible portion of the population who are either not interested or see this as the deluded and discredited establishment getting up to their usual B&M Bargains-version-of-1984 hysterical antics.

Hello Jezzah! All well at the allotment?

;-)

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Your comments are not accurate.

As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.

What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.

I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).

Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.

You can't weaken resolve that doesn't exist.

There is a form of Brexit-ism which suggests that since the EU cannot reform democratically; cannot liberalise when it comes to trade etc - then it is not worth bothering with and we should walk away.

This is a species of that argument.

However, the problems is Europe is not going anywhere; the EU exists. We have to deal with it, trade with it, and partner with it - in or out.

Clearly, we have less influence out.

We had no influence in. Why should we have less out?

When it comes down to it, Brexitism is one long sulk. “We had no influence in.” I mean, really?
The trouble is it can’t be argued with, it’s a faith-based ideology.

Nope. You are really making a fool of yourself today. The EU was the religion - or more accurately a cult - and we are the atheists.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky and BBC makes dreadful reporting for Corbyn with his mp's hitting out hard against him. Latest is Stephen Kinnock holding back no punches against Corbyn and demanding he stands up for the Country

Corbyn's spinners would be advised to go the Banks route and talk about how right he is on non-intervention and, therefore, dialling down rhetoric in general. Loads will not be satisfied with that, but there will be a market for that line of thinking, and his base has prviously been immune to being concerned when his MPs get angry with him. Heck, I know people who have expressed that it was just the attempted execution of a traitor in any case, what's the big deal. And that's from people who live in the same county the attempt happened in.

https://twitter.com/psmith/status/973946720668323842

Slackbladder said:

Sam Coates Times
‏VERIFIED ACCOUNT @SamCoatesTimes

The Press Association has named Seumas Milne as the Jeremy Corbyn spokesman who said that the history of the UK intelligence agencies is "problematic"

No s*** Sherlock....

Is Milne’s problem with the security services that they have too many Russian agents working for them or not enough?

I know plenty don't like its alleged positioning, but a general rule of thumb I have on if a genuine political storm is coming (merited or not) is if the main pages of the BBC news site have something on it. Nothing I can see on Labour troubles over Russia response yet, so for the moment I'd say Corbyn has nothing to worry about in terms of wider impact, but time will tell.

Livingstone has gone on RT to peddle the ludicrous conspiracy theory that this is all about the local elections and the Tories being behind in the polls. Beggars belief.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Your comments are not accurate.

As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.

What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.

I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).

Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.

You can't weaken resolve that doesn't exist.

There is a form of Brexit-ism which suggests that since the EU cannot reform democratically; cannot liberalise when it comes to trade etc - then it is not worth bothering with and we should walk away.

This is a species of that argument.

However, the problems is Europe is not going anywhere; the EU exists. We have to deal with it, trade with it, and partner with it - in or out.

Clearly, we have less influence out.

We had no influence in. Why should we have less out?

When it comes down to it, Brexitism is one long sulk. “We had no influence in.” I mean, really?
The trouble is it can’t be argued with, it’s a faith-based ideology.

Nope. You are really making a fool of yourself today. The EU was the religion - or more accurately a cult - and we are the atheists.

Actually, Brexitism is the Emperor’s New Clothes, and your arse is showing.

Nutter.
https://twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/973945365824245761

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Your comments are not accurate.

As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.

What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.

I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).

Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.

You can't weaken resolve that doesn't exist.

There is a form of Brexit-ism which suggests that since the EU cannot reform democratically; cannot liberalise when it comes to trade etc - then it is not worth bothering with and we should walk away.

This is a species of that argument.

However, the problems is Europe is not going anywhere; the EU exists. We have to deal with it, trade with it, and partner with it - in or out.

Clearly, we have less influence out.

We had no influence in. Why should we have less out?

When it comes down to it, Brexitism is one long sulk. “We had no influence in.” I mean, really?
The trouble is it can’t be argued with, it’s a faith-based ideology.

Nope. You are really making a fool of yourself today. The EU was the religion - or more accurately a cult - and we are the atheists.

What was your real world solution to the Irish customs border again? And every other customs border in Europe for that matter assuming you want the EU abolished?

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/psmith/status/973946720668323842

Wittingly or not, Jezza has allowed Russia to do what it loves to do with the human mind: it's not so much the lies; it's the not knowing what to believe.

Anorak said:

Nutter.
https://twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/973945365824245761

That's 'potential PM nutter' to you.

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Your comments are not accurate.

As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.

What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.

I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).

Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.

You can't weaken resolve that doesn't exist.

There is a form of Brexit-ism which suggests that since the EU cannot reform democratically; cannot liberalise when it comes to trade etc - then it is not worth bothering with and we should walk away.

This is a species of that argument.

However, the problems is Europe is not going anywhere; the EU exists. We have to deal with it, trade with it, and partner with it - in or out.

Clearly, we have less influence out.

We had no influence in. Why should we have less out?

When it comes down to it, Brexitism is one long sulk. “We had no influence in.” I mean, really?
The trouble is it can’t be argued with, it’s a faith-based ideology.

Nope. You are really making a fool of yourself today. The EU was the religion - or more accurately a cult - and we are the atheists.

Actually, Brexitism is the Emperor’s New Clothes, and your arse is showing.

To be fair, that's most of him.

kle4 said:

Anorak said:

Nutter.
https://twitter.com/Maomentum_/status/973945365824245761

That's 'potential PM nutter' to you.

I stand corrected.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Slackbladder said:

Laura Kuenssberg
‏
Rumour that some Labour shadow front benchers might resign over the leader's statement today - let's wait and see - certainly a lot of anger around - uneasy truce in Labour party since election has been trashed by different instincts over Skripal case

Today may well go down as the start of the end of Corbyn and the return to a sensible centre left labour party with all the benefits that would follow for the good of the Country

The only way a change happens is if the membership turn against Jeremy Corbyn. So far a lot of those speaking out against Corbyn are moderates who have already done so in the past. As we saw in 2016 (and in 2015) the views of Labour moderates do not neccessarily reflect the views of Labour members.

Gardenwalker said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Gardenwalker said:

Ishmael_Z said:

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

MaxPB said:

Gardenwalker said:

Your comments are not accurate.

As far as I can tell you’re claiming that I (who am ignorant, stupid etc) think Brexit has led to the Salisbury poisoning. But I’m not, and I don’t think anyone is saying that.

What I am saying is that of course Brexit weakens the Western alliance, specifically the European arm. That’s relevant in respect of Russia policy.

I’m not sure why this is controversial. Indeed this is why Putin and his trolls have supported Brexit (and, inter alia, Scottish independence, Le Pen, Five Star, Trump etc etc etc etc).

Honest leavers would chalk this up as regrettable but perhaps necessary.

You can't weaken resolve that doesn't exist.

However, the problems is Europe is not going anywhere; the EU exists. We have to deal with it, trade with it, and partner with it - in or out.

Clearly, we have less influence out.

We had no influence in. Why should we have less out?

When it comes down to it, Brexitism is one long sulk. “We had no influence in.” I mean, really?
The trouble is it can’t be argued with, it’s a faith-based ideology.

When that claim is made in this forum, the shark has truly been jumped.

I don't think you understand the mechanics of drafting agreements. And I never saw a Leave argument advanced which said that "it’s not fair, the Europeans won’t do as we tell them. " Why would anyone have made such a ludicrous claim when we were one of 28 equal parties?

I don’t think you understand. We are leaving, but in the absence of concrete proposals (apart from the red lines), the EU has drafted an exit agreement for negotiation.

There was nothing stopping us doing so, had we any idea on what we would have written. But we do not, partly because Brexit is a kind of fake policy - devoid of logical premise - and partly because the Tory party is having a hard time agreeing among themselves how to go about it.

As for the “not fair” remark, both Tyndall and Max claim we had zero influence in the EU. Zero.

How else to construe such absurd claims? Not that they are unique of course; such has been the quackery Brexit has been built on for many years, eagerly promoted by the right wing press.

We didn't/don't.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

JWisemann said:

kle4 said:

ToryJim said:

Comrade Livingstone shilling for Putin.... https://twitter.com/journostephen/status/973940719382597634?s=21

What a liar he is - the news pieces which did background on Crimea were pretty clear.

No, he is perfectly correct that Crimea was once part of Russia. It was transferred to the Ukraine by the USSR in 1954.

How is it relevant it was once part of Russia?

So was the whole of Ukraine.

Yes. You see the plan there?