Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
And the billions made in in the Russian oligarchy suddenly become lovely, pure British billions? So that’s what money laundering means.
Yes.
People made billions in the nineties under Yeltsin. What are we supposed to do to reverse that?
Twenty years later, it's happened already. It is, what it is.
Lovely freshly laundered billions of British money...
The Russians that lived immiserated lives and died early because of the raping of their economy by oligarchs would have lived immiserated lives and died early anyway.
Typical Putin apologist.
The problem in Russia is the terrible state that the Soviet Union was in which is why it collapsed, and the cronyism and corruption and mismanagement of Putin.
Not simply "oligarchs" as much as Putin has tried to rewrite history to make them the problem.
It is indisputable that in the post-soviet chaos, many of the current oligarchs found (legal, sometimes) ways to loot the state, a process which inevitably impoverished their fellow citizens as they sought to move that loot out of Russia. That they were cheered on (and often aided & abetted) by a west that was convinced (as in post-invasion Iraq) that bluntly applied libertarianism would result in peace and prosperity for all is also indisputable, although how much actual affect on the outcome the wests meddling had is up for debate.
Putin blaming “oligarchs” for the current parlous state of Russia when he himself is the uber-oligarch, with personal control of more wealth than possibly any other individual on the planet is of course utterly ludicrous.
The problem was that the West *didn't* meddle in Russian affairs. Just opened markets and trade with them*. There was very little done in even suggesting what to do.
*I knew a chap who did very well out of that. Pre-revolution, the French in particular, had been lending quite a bot of money to Russia. In the revolution the debt was defaulted on. As part of restoring Russia to international finance, the debt was resumed. The chap in question had been collecting pre-revolution government debt certificates as tradable art works - a few pounds each. Suddenly they were worth face value.....
The international financial institutions which dictated what turned out to be disastrous policies for Russia were completely dominated by, and located in, the West. Western businessmen then came in alongside, using their frameworks.
Those same institutions gave advice to the Baltic states too.
Some former communist states have done very well. Others have not.
The first really unwise comment I've seen from Ben Wallace, who's done reasonably well for most of the rest of this crisis. More like a return to facile and dangerous Brexit-era rhetoric, than grown-up statesmanship.
"Wallace said his old regiment had “kicked the backside” of the tsar in the Crimea, in 1853, and “we can always do it again”.
What a tit.
I heard Tugendat say something similar. I think they must be ex soldiers or even worse wannabe ex soldiers who had a mess culture similar to the police.
The banter defence is always shaky as said banter almost always reveals something about what someone actually thinks. The idea that Gromit's pal thinks that a British regiment might be in a position to be kicking Russian arse is almost more disturbing than the Loaded patter.
The first really unwise comment I've seen from Ben Wallace, who's done reasonably well for most of the rest of this crisis. More like a return to facile, ill-advised and dangerous Brexit-era rhetoric than grown-up statesmanship.
"Wallace said his old regiment had “kicked the backside” of the tsar in the Crimea, in 1853, and “we can always do it again”.
They weren't intended to be public comments.
"The unguarded comments came as the cabinet minister chatted with serving military personnel at the Horse Guards building in Westminster."
He was obviously just having a bit of banter with some soldiers. He was one himself, of course.
BTW - I chanced to hear to a very interesting profile of Wallace on Radio 4 a few days ago. Presume it would be available on IPlayer. Worth a listen. Ken Clarke was full of praise of him - Wallace was his PPS - and obviously very pleased that he was in this job in the cabinet.
If Boris is defenestrated Wallace would be a very safe pair of hands as PM - a demonstrably competent minister. I think he would also go down well with members who, of course, make the final decision.
That does make is a bit better in fairness. He's not attacking opponents a la Rayner at the bar, but a bit of bravado with some soldiers is not much to be worked up about.
Not that it should be a standard, but the public shitposting from some regimes diplomatically is just pathetic.
The problem though, for him, is that it's now gone on record. If I was Tory MP in this situation, I would genuinely question whether that would affect the wisdom of electing him leader, in the current situation.
You must be joking. The context explains it. Don't think Tory MPs will give two hoots, nor should they.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
And the billions made in in the Russian oligarchy suddenly become lovely, pure British billions? So that’s what money laundering means.
Yes.
People made billions in the nineties under Yeltsin. What are we supposed to do to reverse that?
Twenty years later, it's happened already. It is, what it is.
Lovely freshly laundered billions of British money...
The Russians that lived immiserated lives and died early because of the raping of their economy by oligarchs would have lived immiserated lives and died early anyway.
Typical Putin apologist.
The problem in Russia is the terrible state that the Soviet Union was in which is why it collapsed, and the cronyism and corruption and mismanagement of Putin.
Not simply "oligarchs" as much as Putin has tried to rewrite history to make them the problem.
It is indisputable that in the post-soviet chaos, many of the current oligarchs found (legal, sometimes) ways to loot the state, a process which inevitably impoverished their fellow citizens as they sought to move that loot out of Russia. That they were cheered on (and often aided & abetted) by a west that was convinced (as in post-invasion Iraq) that bluntly applied libertarianism would result in peace and prosperity for all is also indisputable, although how much actual affect on the outcome the wests meddling had is up for debate.
Putin blaming “oligarchs” for the current parlous state of Russia when he himself is the uber-oligarch, with personal control of more wealth than possibly any other individual on the planet is of course utterly ludicrous.
The problem was that the West *didn't* meddle in Russian affairs. Just opened markets and trade with them*. There was very little done in even suggesting what to do.
*I knew a chap who did very well out of that. Pre-revolution, the French in particular, had been lending quite a bot of money to Russia. In the revolution the debt was defaulted on. As part of restoring Russia to international finance, the debt was resumed. The chap in question had been collecting pre-revolution government debt certificates as tradable art works - a few pounds each. Suddenly they were worth face value.....
The international financial institutions which dictated what turned out to be disastrous policies for Russia were completely dominated by, and located in, the West. Western businessmen then came in alongside, using their frameworks.
Those same institutions gave advice to the Baltic states too.
Some former communist states have done very well. Others have not.
They were also much smaller and less complex economies, though, rather than an enormous country liable to hit very hard by an inflexible, one-size-fits-all blueprint. Noreena Hertz, who was involved right in the middle of this catatstrophic process, writes very well about it, and the centrifugal collapse of institutions that happened much faster than in those smaller economies.
Politically, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Johnson has totally messed up on the sanctions issue. He has talked loudly and carried a small stick and put the UK in the position of following, not leading, while at the same time pissing off his own MPs and throwing a spotlight on huge Russian donations to the Tories. It's been a masterclass in how not to do it.
As much as Putin and his apologists try to rewrite history, the biggest problem with nineties Russia isn't the actions of "oligarchs". It is that post Soviet Russia was quite literally a failed state.
Failed states do tend to have corruption and some people can make a (somewhat dodgy) killing out of failed states ... but they're not responsible for the fact the state is failed.
The reason that Russia was a failed state is due to the failure and collapse of Putin's beloved Soviet Union.
The post Soviet republics all were failed states in the early nineties and some struggled more than others. But the ones that have succeeded are those that have embraced democracy, capitalism and most importantly the rule of law. Not those that have embraced kleptocratic hard men like Putin.
That some Putin apologists wish to turn Putin's atrocities into an excuse to persecute Putin's enemies whom British (and other) courts have been sheltering from Putin rather than to face up to the failures of Putin and the Soviets/Russians is an utter disgrace.
Quite right. We must do everything we can to preserve the interests of the Conservative Party and their donors and patrons.
I think you are being foolish to try and turn this into party political point scoring. Russia has it's tentacles into large parts of Western political life. The Tories have been foolish in taking dodgy money, but perhaps not quite as foolish or downright treacherous as those useful idiots like Corbyn and Salmond who have knowingly taken Kremlin money and been part of its propaganda campaign by appearing on RT.
Agreed. While it's possible the Tories have an issue here, what matters is action taken in response to Putin. The rest is for now secondary.
Vladimir Putin has destroyed several decades of German foreign policy consensus, including the foundational assumption that you have to understand Russia’s position. It had been the cross-party consensus in German politics that peace in Europe can only exist in co-operation with Russia, not in opposition to it. Even Scholz was clinging on to this notion until recently, when he was still pushing for the Minsk process. Putin ended up deceiving those who wanted to build a bridge the most……
But perhaps more important than the shift among the German policy elites is this morning's headline in Bild:
Frankly, Putin's 'Ukraine is not a real country' speech seemed tailor made to undercut anyone or any nation who was clinging to the suggestion that Russia had legitimate concerns that needed to be taken on board.
Denying Ukraine in that way revealed everything else re security as a pretext - the problem was it exists at all.
As such, being nice is pretty pointless as his his concerns are not something that can be diplomatically addressed.
Historian of Holocaust and Holodomor Timothy Snyder comments....
"When you deny that another nation exists, as in Putin's myth about Ukraine, you're making a claim that it's okay to destroy that other nation. This kind of language is something we have to pay attention to because it usually precedes atrocious actions."
To be fair, England winning the toss and batting in a Test match precedes atrocious actions but it is best not to pay attention.
A shame to trivialise what was a very well made and serious post.
You may have inadvertently stumbled on the wrong website. Flippant and tangential trivialisation of serious events is a key feature here.
Alex Salmond, your ex-leader. RT apologist for Putin. Nats really should keep quiet on this subject too
I think I'll be the judge of what I should keep quiet about, not some rando whiskey expert.
I am not sure you are judge of anything, particularly your own lack of expertise on everything you post on. Were you to be, you would do us all a favour and post less often.
I note you didn't apply your lack of judgement and lack of expertise to this post I made earlier:
The first really unwise comment I've seen from Ben Wallace, who's done reasonably well for most of the rest of this crisis. More like a return to facile, ill-advised and dangerous Brexit-era rhetoric than grown-up statesmanship.
"Wallace said his old regiment had “kicked the backside” of the tsar in the Crimea, in 1853, and “we can always do it again”.
I have some sympathy in this instance because it wasn't intended to be a public comment, but was just something he said when chatting to a soldier in his former regiment.
It would be incredibly hard on politicians as individuals if they weren't allowed any moments of levity or even bombast when making what were private comments. The strain of being on message 24 hours a day would be excruciating.
Macron is in a fortunate position. He is unpopular and LREM has little support in depth across France. But, every opponent in the run off causes people to vote Macron as the lesser of two evils.
Alex Salmond, your ex-leader. RT apologist for Putin. Nats really should keep quiet on this subject too
I think I'll be the judge of what I should keep quiet about, not some rando whiskey expert.
I am not sure you are judge of anything, particularly your own lack of expertise on everything you post on. Were you to be, you would do us all a favour and post less often.
I note you didn't apply your lack of judgement and lack of expertise to this post I made earlier:
Politically, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Johnson has totally messed up on the sanctions issue. He has talked loudly and carried a small stick and put the UK in the position of following, not leading, while at the same time pissing off his own MPs and throwing a spotlight on huge Russian donations to the Tories. It's been a masterclass in how not to do it.
The thinking will have been that an international crisis would be good for the PM. And it probably should. Trouble for BJ is that if he displays shortcomings it will (or should) simply escalate the determination of MPs to be shot of him. However, surely, they will wait for now.
Confiscating assets from those thought to be mates of Putin is a really crazy idea. If they're going to do something like it should comply with a law that applies to everyone. This sounds like a seriously banana republic idea. I know a British production company that opened in Russia. If the Russians confiscated that as a reprisal who could blame them and where will it end?
We have that law - an Account Freezing Order under the Criminal Financing Act 2017. Our government and our police forces can freeze assets which they believe to be suspect to stop them from being spent / removed whilst they investigate.
But we can't do that. Because it makes too much money for Tory donors and patrons.
You are seriously suggesting that a minister should have the power to direct the police to freeze someone’s assets because “reasons”?
We can’t do that because of the “rule of law” which people seem very happy to ignore today. It’s one of the many things that differentiates us from Putin’s Russia.
The first really unwise comment I've seen from Ben Wallace, who's done reasonably well for most of the rest of this crisis. More like a return to facile, ill-advised and dangerous Brexit-era rhetoric than grown-up statesmanship.
"Wallace said his old regiment had “kicked the backside” of the tsar in the Crimea, in 1853, and “we can always do it again”.
They weren't intended to be public comments.
"The unguarded comments came as the cabinet minister chatted with serving military personnel at the Horse Guards building in Westminster."
He was obviously just having a bit of banter with some soldiers. He was one himself, of course.
BTW - I chanced to hear to a very interesting profile of Wallace on Radio 4 a few days ago. Presume it would be available on IPlayer. Worth a listen. Ken Clarke was full of praise of him - Wallace was his PPS - and obviously very pleased that he was in this job in the cabinet.
If Boris is defenestrated Wallace would be a very safe pair of hands as PM - a demonstrably competent minister. I think he would also go down well with members who, of course, make the final decision.
That does make is a bit better in fairness. He's not attacking opponents a la Rayner at the bar, but a bit of bravado with some soldiers is not much to be worked up about.
Not that it should be a standard, but the public shitposting from some regimes diplomatically is just pathetic.
The problem though, for him, is that it's now gone on record. If I was Tory MP in this situation, I would genuinely question whether that would affect the wisdom of electing him leader, in the current situation.
You must be joking. The context explains it. Don't think Tory MPs will give two hoots, nor should they.
I would agree that they won't, but I wouldn't agree that they shouldn't.
He should at the very least be very careful about making those kind of unguarded comments again, in public or private, in anything like the current situation. Banter or not, it's certainly not wise, because these kind of conversations will always leak ( see Rayner ) ; and in his job, and the current context, they're actually dangerous.
"Meanwhile, British farmers have already been hit with a fertiliser crisis. A block on fertiliser chemicals exported by Russia means prices have more than doubled, leaving farmers to cope with the rise alongside soaring energy bills and supply chain disruption."
Assuming Le Pen gets the nominations, I will repeat myself again and say that I can't see past Macron beating Le Pen by 60-40 in the runoff.
Except Macron only beats Le Pen 57% to 43% on that poll. 76% of Zemmour voters switch to Le Pen in the runoff and even Melenchon voters only prefer Macron over Le Pen 28% to 22%.
As much as Putin and his apologists try to rewrite history, the biggest problem with nineties Russia isn't the actions of "oligarchs". It is that post Soviet Russia was quite literally a failed state.
Failed states do tend to have corruption and some people can make a (somewhat dodgy) killing out of failed states ... but they're not responsible for the fact the state is failed.
The reason that Russia was a failed state is due to the failure and collapse of Putin's beloved Soviet Union.
The post Soviet republics all were failed states in the early nineties and some struggled more than others. But the ones that have succeeded are those that have embraced democracy, capitalism and most importantly the rule of law. Not those that have embraced kleptocratic hard men like Putin.
That some Putin apologists wish to turn Putin's atrocities into an excuse to persecute Putin's enemies whom British (and other) courts have been sheltering from Putin rather than to face up to the failures of Putin and the Soviets/Russians is an utter disgrace.
As I have said many times before, Russia has all the makings of being a world leader. It has massive natural resources, a highly-educated people, and a massive industrial base. It should be a world leader, and could be.
What lets the country down is its leadership. Putin. Instead of trying to raise Russia up to compete with the world, he spends his country's treasure trying to bring other countries down to his level.
People should remember that the real issue here is not the UK. It is not the west.
Alex Salmond, your ex-leader. RT apologist for Putin. Nats really should keep quiet on this subject too
I think I'll be the judge of what I should keep quiet about, not some rando whiskey expert.
I am not sure you are judge of anything, particularly your own lack of expertise on everything you post on. Were you to be, you would do us all a favour and post less often.
I note you didn't apply your lack of judgement and lack of expertise to this post I made earlier:
The very few posts of yours that I bother replying to are ones directed at me, which tends to be my attitude to posters who are ball aching bores.
I am only a bore to you because I expose the shallowness of your thinking and your inability to argue. You are just a Nat troll who only posts on matters to illustrate your Anglophobia as though it is a badge of honour, when in fact it just highlights what a complete prejudiced twat you are.
Politically, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Johnson has totally messed up on the sanctions issue. He has talked loudly and carried a small stick and put the UK in the position of following, not leading, while at the same time pissing off his own MPs and throwing a spotlight on huge Russian donations to the Tories. It's been a masterclass in how not to do it.
Definitely a correct real-world analysis, but feels that you might be a bit too optimistic about the bulk of his own MPs, which of course is now the only electorate he thinks have any importance. It seems that the loyalists, media outriders and those who want to support him are still happy to buy assurances that our measures are the best and toughest in the world, and we're leading the EU, and would be far more limited in what we could do if we were in the EU... and so on. Provided he announces the UK spin lines before the EU acts, it doesn't seem to matter what the implemented reality then is.
"Meanwhile, British farmers have already been hit with a fertiliser crisis. A block on fertiliser chemicals exported by Russia means prices have more than doubled, leaving farmers to cope with the rise alongside soaring energy bills and supply chain disruption."
Telegraph
Well thats what can happen. Sanctions are not a one way street.
Politically, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Johnson has totally messed up on the sanctions issue. He has talked loudly and carried a small stick and put the UK in the position of following, not leading, while at the same time pissing off his own MPs and throwing a spotlight on huge Russian donations to the Tories. It's been a masterclass in how not to do it.
I'm far more concerned about the lack of action than any donations. If the latter really is affecting the former, then that would be different, but for now that's just surmise.
Politically, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Johnson has totally messed up on the sanctions issue. He has talked loudly and carried a small stick and put the UK in the position of following, not leading, while at the same time pissing off his own MPs and throwing a spotlight on huge Russian donations to the Tories. It's been a masterclass in how not to do it.
Definitely a correct real-world analysis, but feels that you might be a bit too optimistic about the bulk of his own MPs, which of course is now the only electorate he thinks have any importance. It seems that the loyalists, media outriders and those who want to support him are still happy to buy assurances that our measures are the best and toughest in the world, and we're leading the EU, and would be far more limited in what we could do if we were in the EU... and so on. Provided he announces the UK spin lines before the EU acts, it doesn't seem to matter what the implemented reality then is.
Oh, for sure: Johnson is speaking to and for a very small constituency these days and has clearly done enough for those who put party before country. However, everyone else can watch and listen. That will matter further down the line.
Alex Salmond, your ex-leader. RT apologist for Putin. Nats really should keep quiet on this subject too
I think I'll be the judge of what I should keep quiet about, not some rando whiskey expert.
I am not sure you are judge of anything, particularly your own lack of expertise on everything you post on. Were you to be, you would do us all a favour and post less often.
I note you didn't apply your lack of judgement and lack of expertise to this post I made earlier:
The very few posts of yours that I bother replying to are ones directed at me, which tends to be my attitude to posters who are ball aching bores.
I am only a bore to you because I expose the shallowness of your thinking and your inability to argue. You are just a Nat troll who only posts on matters to illustrate your Anglophobia as though it is a badge of honour, when in fact it just highlights what a complete prejudiced twat you are.
Since you're always whining about people being abusive to you, make that a hypocritical ball aching bore. Now off you jolly well go and caper for attention from someone else.
Confiscating assets from those thought to be mates of Putin is a really crazy idea. If they're going to do something like it should comply with a law that applies to everyone. This sounds like a seriously banana republic idea. I know a British production company that opened in Russia. If the Russians confiscated that as a reprisal who could blame them and where will it end?
I'm not going to come at it from that angle, but I've never been given confidence that how to prosecute a sanctions war in detail, and the civil and military tactics and strategy of such a war, has been through the kind of planning and analysis you would do for tanks, guns and planes action. Rather, an "OK chaps, we'll sanction him, him and them and that should do for the moment".
Do they get the practical economists, the quants and traders, the bankers and the military planners round a table and treat sanctions for the military campaign that they are, do they research, scenario model, test and role play how sanctions will.play out? Because, if they aren't, they should and I'm not confident that they do it to this level.
The first really unwise comment I've seen from Ben Wallace, who's done reasonably well for most of the rest of this crisis. More like a return to facile, ill-advised and dangerous Brexit-era rhetoric than grown-up statesmanship.
"Wallace said his old regiment had “kicked the backside” of the tsar in the Crimea, in 1853, and “we can always do it again”.
I have some sympathy in this instance because it wasn't intended to be a public comment, but was just something he said when chatting to a soldier in his former regiment.
It would be incredibly hard on politicians as individuals if they weren't allowed any moments of levity or even bombast when making what were private comments. The strain of being on message 24 hours a day would be excruciating.
I've some sympathy, but if he makes a regular habit of it then he is, as TSE says, a tit.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
And the billions made in in the Russian oligarchy suddenly become lovely, pure British billions? So that’s what money laundering means.
Yes.
People made billions in the nineties under Yeltsin. What are we supposed to do to reverse that?
Twenty years later, it's happened already. It is, what it is.
Lovely freshly laundered billions of British money...
The Russians that lived immiserated lives and died early because of the raping of their economy by oligarchs would have lived immiserated lives and died early anyway.
Typical Putin apologist.
The problem in Russia is the terrible state that the Soviet Union was in which is why it collapsed, and the cronyism and corruption and mismanagement of Putin.
Not simply "oligarchs" as much as Putin has tried to rewrite history to make them the problem.
It is indisputable that in the post-soviet chaos, many of the current oligarchs found (legal, sometimes) ways to loot the state, a process which inevitably impoverished their fellow citizens as they sought to move that loot out of Russia. That they were cheered on (and often aided & abetted) by a west that was convinced (as in post-invasion Iraq) that bluntly applied libertarianism would result in peace and prosperity for all is also indisputable, although how much actual affect on the outcome the wests meddling had is up for debate.
Putin blaming “oligarchs” for the current parlous state of Russia when he himself is the uber-oligarch, with personal control of more wealth than possibly any other individual on the planet is of course utterly ludicrous.
The problem was that the West *didn't* meddle in Russian affairs. Just opened markets and trade with them*. There was very little done in even suggesting what to do.
*I knew a chap who did very well out of that. Pre-revolution, the French in particular, had been lending quite a bot of money to Russia. In the revolution the debt was defaulted on. As part of restoring Russia to international finance, the debt was resumed. The chap in question had been collecting pre-revolution government debt certificates as tradable art works - a few pounds each. Suddenly they were worth face value.....
The international financial institutions which dictated what turned out to be disastrous policies for Russia were completely dominated by, and located in, the West. Western businessmen then came in alongside, using their frameworks.
Those same institutions gave advice to the Baltic states too.
Some former communist states have done very well. Others have not.
I don't know anything about the leaders of the Baltic States in the 90s, but I would hazard a guess at them being better than Yeltsin.
It was interesting to hear comments from Jonathan Powell on the radio yesterday about how Putin seemed to change over the years. You got the impression he could have been a good leader if constrained by effective checks and balances.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
Should be a short study then. What benefit is there to anything other than market traders to go from metric units that almost all of rest of the world use to imperial units that only the UK will use?
I'm not against the information being made available to consumers alongside metric as it already is, but it would be ludicrous to replace metric.
'Full tonto' moves him from tit into the dick column.
Nick Eardley @nickeardleybbc PA quoting the defence secretary in unguarded comments to members of the military: "We've got a busy adversary now in Putin, who has gone full tonto...The Scots Guards kicked the backside of Tsar Nicholas I in 1853 in Crimea - we can always do it again."
Oh gods, they must be desperate for something to throw out to please some old fogeys.
I will never understand this fetish about imperial units. I do my weight and height in it, and yes you can do small things at the same time as big things, but jesus that's a ridiculous thing to put any energy into.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
And the billions made in in the Russian oligarchy suddenly become lovely, pure British billions? So that’s what money laundering means.
Yes.
People made billions in the nineties under Yeltsin. What are we supposed to do to reverse that?
Twenty years later, it's happened already. It is, what it is.
Lovely freshly laundered billions of British money...
The Russians that lived immiserated lives and died early because of the raping of their economy by oligarchs would have lived immiserated lives and died early anyway.
Typical Putin apologist.
The problem in Russia is the terrible state that the Soviet Union was in which is why it collapsed, and the cronyism and corruption and mismanagement of Putin.
Not simply "oligarchs" as much as Putin has tried to rewrite history to make them the problem.
It is indisputable that in the post-soviet chaos, many of the current oligarchs found (legal, sometimes) ways to loot the state, a process which inevitably impoverished their fellow citizens as they sought to move that loot out of Russia. That they were cheered on (and often aided & abetted) by a west that was convinced (as in post-invasion Iraq) that bluntly applied libertarianism would result in peace and prosperity for all is also indisputable, although how much actual affect on the outcome the wests meddling had is up for debate.
Putin blaming “oligarchs” for the current parlous state of Russia when he himself is the uber-oligarch, with personal control of more wealth than possibly any other individual on the planet is of course utterly ludicrous.
The problem was that the West *didn't* meddle in Russian affairs. Just opened markets and trade with them*. There was very little done in even suggesting what to do.
*I knew a chap who did very well out of that. Pre-revolution, the French in particular, had been lending quite a bot of money to Russia. In the revolution the debt was defaulted on. As part of restoring Russia to international finance, the debt was resumed. The chap in question had been collecting pre-revolution government debt certificates as tradable art works - a few pounds each. Suddenly they were worth face value.....
The international financial institutions which dictated what turned out to be entirely disastrous policies for Russia were completely dominated by the West.
They didn't dictate - they made suggestions which the Russian state.... implemented.... in their own, interesting style.
And then kept on throwing bags of money over the wall on easy terms.
The Russians had little option after 1991. The previous structures had collapsed, and there were very considerable both financial and ideological pressures. it was only several years later that Western economists working with institutions like the World Bank in Russia, such as Noreena Hertz, whose experiences there turned her into a soft-leftist, realised and documented how much damage had been done.
Economic orthodoxy has moved on now, somewhat, but the damage to Russia is done.
Lea Ypi’s “Free” is fascinating on this, but in the context of Albania. (The first half is about living under the communist dictatorship; the second about what happened next.)
As much as Putin and his apologists try to rewrite history, the biggest problem with nineties Russia isn't the actions of "oligarchs". It is that post Soviet Russia was quite literally a failed state.
Failed states do tend to have corruption and some people can make a (somewhat dodgy) killing out of failed states ... but they're not responsible for the fact the state is failed.
The reason that Russia was a failed state is due to the failure and collapse of Putin's beloved Soviet Union.
The post Soviet republics all were failed states in the early nineties and some struggled more than others. But the ones that have succeeded are those that have embraced democracy, capitalism and most importantly the rule of law. Not those that have embraced kleptocratic hard men like Putin.
That some Putin apologists wish to turn Putin's atrocities into an excuse to persecute Putin's enemies whom British (and other) courts have been sheltering from Putin rather than to face up to the failures of Putin and the Soviets/Russians is an utter disgrace.
Quite right. We must do everything we can to preserve the interests of the Conservative Party and their donors and patrons.
I think you are being foolish to try and turn this into party political point scoring. Russia has it's tentacles into large parts of Western political life. The Tories have been foolish in taking dodgy money, but perhaps not quite as foolish or downright treacherous as those useful idiots like Corbyn and Salmond who have knowingly taken Kremlin money and been part of its propaganda campaign by appearing on RT.
Agreed. While it's possible the Tories have an issue here, what matters is action taken in response to Putin. The rest is for now secondary.
We aren't taking action in response to Putin - thats the point. The Tories are awash with Russian money directly and indirectly, which is why they are doing nothing of any practical use.
Oh gods, they must be desperate for something to throw out to please some old fogeys.
I will never understand this fetish about imperial units. I do my weight and height in it, and yes you can do small things at the same time as big things, but jesus that's a ridiculous thing to put any energy into.
It's probably worth devoting a few BTUs or foot-pound-forces or horsepower hours.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
And the billions made in in the Russian oligarchy suddenly become lovely, pure British billions? So that’s what money laundering means.
Yes.
People made billions in the nineties under Yeltsin. What are we supposed to do to reverse that?
Twenty years later, it's happened already. It is, what it is.
Lovely freshly laundered billions of British money...
The Russians that lived immiserated lives and died early because of the raping of their economy by oligarchs would have lived immiserated lives and died early anyway.
Typical Putin apologist.
The problem in Russia is the terrible state that the Soviet Union was in which is why it collapsed, and the cronyism and corruption and mismanagement of Putin.
Not simply "oligarchs" as much as Putin has tried to rewrite history to make them the problem.
Yes, Putin and the Russian oligarchs are entirely separate entities, not complicit in the slightest. The ones that have moved to the UK should really be regarded as freedom fighters
What a silly little man you are.
Yes Putin and Russian oligarchs are entirely separate entities, which is why Putin and his useful idiots have been blaming Russia's ills on oligarchs instead of Russia being a failed state with a kleptocratic government. It is why our own courts have been refusing to extradite people like Temerko that our own courts have ruled for decades that Putin has been trying to persecute. It is also why Putin has persecuted and imprisoned so many oligarchs.
Some oligarchs, especially those active in Russia today are related to Putin, such is the nature of kleptocracies. That doesn't mean that all of them, especially the ones that since Tony Blair was PM that independent courts have ruled are being persecuted by Putin.
You asked yesterday where the left-wing Putin apologists are. Considering that you want to blame Russia's ills on Putin's enemies, to flout the rule of British law and court cases and to react to Putin's belligerence by attacking Putin's enemies instead of his allies . . . I suspect that you should look in the mirror next time you want to find a left-wing Putin apologist.
Some quite bad missteps from both Party leaders at this PMQs. Starmer has made a boob calling on government to ban RT. In a democracy under rule of law, you give a reason for a ban. Anyone else doing same thing also then gets a ban? The steps Boris and Nadine are taking on this are the right ones, whilst Starmer implies if he was in number ten it would be handled differently? Quite rightly so many of his own supporters will dislike him for this.
I think Boris dog whistle mistake at PMQs will be far more serious for him though - when he mentioned a Labour MP accepted £100’sK from a Chinese Spy the heckling of Starmer began. Boris should never have said that.
'Full tonto' moves him from tit into the dick column.
Nick Eardley @nickeardleybbc PA quoting the defence secretary in unguarded comments to members of the military: "We've got a busy adversary now in Putin, who has gone full tonto...The Scots Guards kicked the backside of Tsar Nicholas I in 1853 in Crimea - we can always do it again."
Why backside not arse? That kind of undermines the unguarded claim.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader. As you say passports for sale and if not then have a shell company or two.
Then again you get awfully upset when people rightly criticise Salmond.
I still give his gaff a cheery wave every time I drive past. Has a beautiful garden as well, he must be very handy.
I think you mean handsy
Lib Dems should be embarrassed to try and put that on anyone , given their past on hiding and protecting monsters. @RochdalePioneers
Boris Johnson lies persistently now, realising that the endless repetition of unchallenged false statements is what gets through to voters. His Russian sanctions are disgracefully weak, but at PMQs he pretends UK is 'Leading the way' and 'no one has done more' https://twitter.com/jennirsl/status/1496466351313010688
@Farooq Three books, picked at random from my library on the subject;
Alexander Polunov, Russia in the Nineteenth Century P.106 'The peasants could not accept such prominent features of the [1861] reform as the preservation of gentry landholding and the redemption of their allotments...the peasants began to suspect the Tsar had been deceived...rumours arose of a scheduled hour or promised hour when the Tsar would announce real emancipation to them, without redemption payments or reduced allotments.'
P.232 Inequality and stratification would inevitably result when the peasants personally owned their allotment land and could buy and sell it...Stolypin predicted that some of the peasants who lost their lands would find work in the growing industrial cities. For others, he proposed large scale emigration to the eastern areas of the empire...[which] would remove the hapless, embittered and potentially rebellious peasants from overpopulated central Russia.'
Peter Waldron,The End of Imperial Russia P. 51
'The need for them [the peasantry] to pay for the land they farmed was wholly at odds with the fundamental belief among the peasants that, as they worked the land, they were its real owners.'
P.54 'Even where farmsteads were formed wholly separate from the village settlements, there are many examples of them being occupied only seasonally so that the peasants returned to live in the village during the winter. The attraction of the village community remained strong.'
J. N. WEstwood, Endurance and Endeavour, Russian History 1812-1992
P.79 'To the peasant, who believed the land was rightfully his, it seemed he was being compelled to buy his own property....many were in no hurry because they anticipated the land to be received would be more of a burden than an asset; it was too small to support him but entailed heavy tax and redemption payments.'
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Now, where does this leave your comment? First of all, it shows that while you have understood it in part, you haven't understood it in full. It wasn't that peasants didn't want land. It was that on the terms offered it was unattractive (49 years of redemption payments and continued toll work for the landlord which were only finally abandoned in 1905). They still wanted the land, which they believed was rightfully theirs, but couldn't get it. This in itself built up quite a head of anti-government steam. THere is a reason why Lenin coined the slogan 'All land to the peasants' in 1917.
Secondly, although those quotations don't really cover this, the second issue was a shortage of land, especially good land. The population of the Russian Empire rose by 50% from 82 million (estimated) in 1872 to 125 million in 1897. Obviously, if land supply was inadequate in 1861 it was not becoming less inadequate by 1905. This made it more expensive, and therefore easier for those peasants - usually those who had been lucky enough to be allocated the most productive land after 1861 - to buy more while others were left with nothing at all. Sending people to Siberia to try and establish new farmland there were for fairly obvious reasons not very successful. Many returned to Moscow and St Petersburg feeling they had been tricked of their rightful land under false pretences.
So I think you really misunderstood what was wanted, as against what was available. Certainly the hunger for land among the peasantry was very important. A nice little plot of land that they could grow grain on and keep a couple of animals was all they wanted. Unfortunately, it was never there and never going to be. THere just wasn't enough land to go round given the population explosion, not helped by the fact that nobles still owned 50% of the land as late as 1904 (Polunov 126).
THis goes a long way towards explaining both the chaos that was caused in 1905 when peasants tried to seize land by force, and the issues in 1928-31 when Stalin decided to take back land Lenin had given out freely in 1918 by force.
Margaret Hodge raised risk of muddled messaging in #PMQs, particularly on sanctions on Duma members. But messaging still unclear re whether new Russian aggression needed to trigger next 'barrage' of sanctions https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1496464486957555726
Virtue signalling at its worst. Where are we better off, RT banned in the UK, the BBC banned in Russia, or both continuing broadcasting and letting viewers decide who to believe?
Oh gods, they must be desperate for something to throw out to please some old fogeys.
I will never understand this fetish about imperial units. I do my weight and height in it, and yes you can do small things at the same time as big things, but jesus that's a ridiculous thing to put any energy into.
I say we go the other way and introduce metric time. I'd be getting my champagne ready at 19:99
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader.
I'm not sure they are paid and I don't like to accuse regulars of trolling (which is the base of all base accusations and a sign that you've run out of steam) but I totally agree with you.
This has been the hard Right's worst hour on pb.com
Odd comments coming from someone who seems to somewhat back Russia in this, and another whose hero is paid by Russia.
At least we can string a few words together, only odd thing here is your pompous crap input. Try adding some value even if only a pittance. You have no idea who I think are heroes and your pathetic attempt at an insult just about sums you up, now F off and get a life of your own.
Now now, Malc. You have been a rather robust defender of Salmond on here, have you not?
Jury also supported him and threw out all the false claims, though the culprits and their friends managed to escape by use of gagging orders. Not Scotland's Judiciary's finest moment along with Government and Civil Service assistance. Never have so many memories been forgotten/mistaken in history.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
Oh gods, they must be desperate for something to throw out to please some old fogeys.
I will never understand this fetish about imperial units. I do my weight and height in it, and yes you can do small things at the same time as big things, but jesus that's a ridiculous thing to put any energy into.
It's probably worth devoting a few BTUs or foot-pound-forces or horsepower hours.
Dammit, I was just writing the same
It would be a good way to hide increases in energy prices - you get a lot more BTUs to the £ than kWh
"Meanwhile, British farmers have already been hit with a fertiliser crisis. A block on fertiliser chemicals exported by Russia means prices have more than doubled, leaving farmers to cope with the rise alongside soaring energy bills and supply chain disruption."
Telegraph
1997 won’t be repeated in the farming communities, they will be out in force voting Conservative at the next GE, Is my prediction. We have a Tory government not doing much to court them though, so voting results between now and the election could raise a few eyebrows though.
Oh gods, they must be desperate for something to throw out to please some old fogeys.
I will never understand this fetish about imperial units. I do my weight and height in it, and yes you can do small things at the same time as big things, but jesus that's a ridiculous thing to put any energy into.
I say we go the other way and introduce metric time. I'd be getting my champagne ready at 19:99
So, like Prince, tonight you're going to have a work event like it's 19:99?
Virtue signalling at its worst. Where are we better off, RT banned in the UK, the BBC banned in Russia, or both continuing broadcasting and letting viewers decide who to believe?
If the government can change the law to criminalise peaceful protest and restrict the franchise to those holding government-approved ID, it can surely do the same to restrict the broadcasting rights of an entity controlled by a murderous thug.
Virtue signalling at its worst. Where are we better off, RT banned in the UK, the BBC banned in Russia, or both continuing broadcasting and letting viewers decide who to believe?
Why are you ready to die on a cross for RT? Are you hoping to get a show on it?
Today on Context Free Twitter With Carlotta
The UK would definitely be better off for withdrawing RT's ability to broadcast.
Now, where does this leave your comment? First of all, it shows that while you have understood it in part, you haven't understood it in full. It wasn't that peasants didn't want land. It was that on the terms offered it was unattractive (49 years of redemption payments and continued toll work for the landlord which were only finally abandoned in 1905). They still wanted the land, which they believed was rightfully theirs, but couldn't get it. This in itself built up quite a head of anti-government steam. THere is a reason why Lenin coined the slogan 'All land to the peasants' in 1917.
Secondly, although those quotations don't really cover this, the second issue was a shortage of land, especially good land. The population of the Russian Empire rose by 50% from 82 million (estimated) in 1872 to 125 million in 1897. Obviously, if land supply was inadequate in 1861 it was not becoming less inadequate by 1905. This made it more expensive, and therefore easier for those peasants - usually those who had been lucky enough to be allocated the most productive land after 1861 - to buy more while others were left with nothing at all. Sending people to Siberia to try and establish new farmland there were for fairly obvious reasons not very successful. Many returned to Moscow and St Petersburg feeling they had been tricked of their rightful land under false pretences.
So I think you really misunderstood what was wanted, as against what was available. Certainly the hunger for land among the peasantry was very important. A nice little plot of land that they could grow grain on and keep a couple of animals was all they wanted. Unfortunately, it was never there and never going to be. THere just wasn't enough land to go round given the population explosion, not helped by the fact that nobles still owned 50% of the land as late as 1904 (Polunov 126).
THis goes a long way towards explaining both the chaos that was caused in 1905 when peasants tried to seize land by force, and the issues in 1928-31 when Stalin decided to take back land Lenin had given out freely in 1918 by force.
Hope that helps.
It certainly does, and thank you for taking the time to help me understand this better.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
And the billions made in in the Russian oligarchy suddenly become lovely, pure British billions? So that’s what money laundering means.
Yes.
People made billions in the nineties under Yeltsin. What are we supposed to do to reverse that?
Twenty years later, it's happened already. It is, what it is.
Lovely freshly laundered billions of British money...
The Russians that lived immiserated lives and died early because of the raping of their economy by oligarchs would have lived immiserated lives and died early anyway.
Typical Putin apologist.
The problem in Russia is the terrible state that the Soviet Union was in which is why it collapsed, and the cronyism and corruption and mismanagement of Putin.
Not simply "oligarchs" as much as Putin has tried to rewrite history to make them the problem.
It is indisputable that in the post-soviet chaos, many of the current oligarchs found (legal, sometimes) ways to loot the state, a process which inevitably impoverished their fellow citizens as they sought to move that loot out of Russia. That they were cheered on (and often aided & abetted) by a west that was convinced (as in post-invasion Iraq) that bluntly applied libertarianism would result in peace and prosperity for all is also indisputable, although how much actual affect on the outcome the wests meddling had is up for debate.
Putin blaming “oligarchs” for the current parlous state of Russia when he himself is the uber-oligarch, with personal control of more wealth than possibly any other individual on the planet is of course utterly ludicrous.
The problem was that the West *didn't* meddle in Russian affairs. Just opened markets and trade with them*. There was very little done in even suggesting what to do.
*I knew a chap who did very well out of that. Pre-revolution, the French in particular, had been lending quite a bot of money to Russia. In the revolution the debt was defaulted on. As part of restoring Russia to international finance, the debt was resumed. The chap in question had been collecting pre-revolution government debt certificates as tradable art works - a few pounds each. Suddenly they were worth face value.....
The international financial institutions which dictated what turned out to be entirely disastrous policies for Russia were completely dominated by the West.
They didn't dictate - they made suggestions which the Russian state.... implemented.... in their own, interesting style.
And then kept on throwing bags of money over the wall on easy terms.
The Russians had little option after 1991. The previous structures had collapsed, and there were very considerable both financial and ideological pressures. it was only several years later that Western economists working with institutions like the World Bank in Russia, such as Noreena Hertz, whose experiences there turned her into a soft-leftist, realised and documented how much damage had been done.
Economic orthodoxy has moved on now, somewhat, but the damage to Russia is done.
Lea Ypi’s “Free” is fascinating on this, but in the context of Albania. (The first half is about living under the communist dictatorship; the second about what happened next.)
Yes, it is a fascinating insight into life before and after the fall of the iron curtain. A great book.
"Meanwhile, British farmers have already been hit with a fertiliser crisis. A block on fertiliser chemicals exported by Russia means prices have more than doubled, leaving farmers to cope with the rise alongside soaring energy bills and supply chain disruption."
Telegraph
That is good news. Encourage the use of more environmentally friendly alternatives.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
The paid Tory consultants on here are looking ever more ridiculous with their pathetic support of the Leader.
I'm not sure they are paid and I don't like to accuse regulars of trolling (which is the base of all base accusations and a sign that you've run out of steam) but I totally agree with you.
This has been the hard Right's worst hour on pb.com
Odd comments coming from someone who seems to somewhat back Russia in this, and another whose hero is paid by Russia.
At least we can string a few words together, only odd thing here is your pompous crap input. Try adding some value even if only a pittance. You have no idea who I think are heroes and your pathetic attempt at an insult just about sums you up, now F off and get a life of your own.
Now now, Malc. You have been a rather robust defender of Salmond on here, have you not?
Jury also supported him and threw out all the false claims, though the culprits and their friends managed to escape by use of gagging orders. Not Scotland's Judiciary's finest moment along with Government and Civil Service assistance. Never have so many memories been forgotten/mistaken in history.
I know about the court case, but this is about his accepting Putin's shilling.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.
Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?
"Meanwhile, British farmers have already been hit with a fertiliser crisis. A block on fertiliser chemicals exported by Russia means prices have more than doubled, leaving farmers to cope with the rise alongside soaring energy bills and supply chain disruption."
Telegraph
1997 won’t be repeated in the farming communities, they will be out in force voting Conservative at the next GE, Is my prediction. We have a Tory government not doing much to court them though, so voting results between now and the election could raise a few eyebrows though.
There won't be much of a farming community by then I suspect.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.
Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?
Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes
Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No
@Farooq Three books, picked at random from my library on the subject;
Alexander Polunov, Russia in the Nineteenth Century P.106 'The peasants could not accept such prominent features of the [1861] reform as the preservation of gentry landholding and the redemption of their allotments...the peasants began to suspect the Tsar had been deceived...rumours arose of a scheduled hour or promised hour when the Tsar would announce real emancipation to them, without redemption payments or reduced allotments.'
P.232 Inequality and stratification would inevitably result when the peasants personally owned their allotment land and could buy and sell it...Stolypin predicted that some of the peasants who lost their lands would find work in the growing industrial cities. For others, he proposed large scale emigration to the eastern areas of the empire...[which] would remove the hapless, embittered and potentially rebellious peasants from overpopulated central Russia.'
Peter Waldron,The End of Imperial Russia P. 51
'The need for them [the peasantry] to pay for the land they farmed was wholly at odds with the fundamental belief among the peasants that, as they worked the land, they were its real owners.'
P.54 'Even where farmsteads were formed wholly separate from the village settlements, there are many examples of them being occupied only seasonally so that the peasants returned to live in the village during the winter. The attraction of the village community remained strong.'
J. N. WEstwood, Endurance and Endeavour, Russian History 1812-1992
P.79 'To the peasant, who believed the land was rightfully his, it seemed he was being compelled to buy his own property....many were in no hurry because they anticipated the land to be received would be more of a burden than an asset; it was too small to support him but entailed heavy tax and redemption payments.'
I’m not taking the pee or anything Doctor, but you can reference Anna Karenina too, it covers the subject very well.
Communists to serfs: we are going to free you. Serfs to Communists: bugger off you deluded capitalist twits, we like our way off life, we are guaranteed work and housing.
"Meanwhile, British farmers have already been hit with a fertiliser crisis. A block on fertiliser chemicals exported by Russia means prices have more than doubled, leaving farmers to cope with the rise alongside soaring energy bills and supply chain disruption."
Telegraph
1997 won’t be repeated in the farming communities, they will be out in force voting Conservative at the next GE, Is my prediction. We have a Tory government not doing much to court them though, so voting results between now and the election could raise a few eyebrows though.
There won't be much of a farming community by then I suspect.
Utterly ridiculous hyperbole. I must have missed all the fields lying fallow as no one can afford to farm them.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
There's been too little nuance on both sides of this argument, so your comment here is a breath of fresh air. There certainly are legitimate concerns here that go beyond either slagging the Tories or just being racist against Russians.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.
Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?
Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes
Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No
Nobody is buying influence of a PM. British citizens are entitled to donate to political parties and you've accepted that he is a British citizen.
So under what procedure should you strip his rights away, when he's a British citizen that the courts have already ruled is persecuted by Putin?
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.
Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?
Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes
Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No
Nobody is buying influence of a PM. British citizens are entitled to donate to political parties and you've accepted that he is a British citizen.
So under what procedure should you strip his rights away, when he's a British citizen that the courts have already ruled is persecuted by Putin?
From the same Reuters article. This is paying for influence.
"Temerko spoke warmly about his “friend” Johnson, telling how the two men sometimes call each other “Sasha,” the Russian diminutive for Alexander, which is Johnson’s real first name. He described how, at the beginning of Johnson’s tenure as Foreign Secretary from 2016 to 2018, they would often “plot” late into the evening over a bottle of wine on the balcony of Johnson’s office at parliament in Westminster."
As stated my control would be a max £1k political donation per year from any individual, business or union, which would make these issues irrelevant. Until then it should be political parties and leaders exercising responsibility or facing public flak when they dont!
I have wondered how many of the 'metric martyrs' ever wondered about the linguistic origins of a system of weight measurement properly known as avoirdupois
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.
Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?
Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes
Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No
Nobody is buying influence of a PM. British citizens are entitled to donate to political parties and you've accepted that he is a British citizen.
So under what procedure should you strip his rights away, when he's a British citizen that the courts have already ruled is persecuted by Putin?
From the same Reuters article. This is paying for influence.
"Temerko spoke warmly about his “friend” Johnson, telling how the two men sometimes call each other “Sasha,” the Russian diminutive for Alexander, which is Johnson’s real first name. He described how, at the beginning of Johnson’s tenure as Foreign Secretary from 2016 to 2018, they would often “plot” late into the evening over a bottle of wine on the balcony of Johnson’s office at parliament in Westminster."
He's a British citizen. Why should MPs not be friends or accept donations from British citizens?
And given Putin's atrocities this week, why is your ire being fired at those the courts have already ruled are Putin's enemies instead of his allies? Doesn't that strike you as a tad arse over tit?
Virtue signalling at its worst. Where are we better off, RT banned in the UK, the BBC banned in Russia, or both continuing broadcasting and letting viewers decide who to believe?
How has anyone advocated breaking the law? Broadcasting is licensed by OFCOM. Asking that the regulator reviews the license held by RT is not "banning" them nor "breaking the law".
RT look likely to be in breach of Rules 5.11 and 5.12 of the Broadcasting Code and thus their license to broadcast in the UK
@Farooq Three books, picked at random from my library on the subject;
Alexander Polunov, Russia in the Nineteenth Century P.106 'The peasants could not accept such prominent features of the [1861] reform as the preservation of gentry landholding and the redemption of their allotments...the peasants began to suspect the Tsar had been deceived...rumours arose of a scheduled hour or promised hour when the Tsar would announce real emancipation to them, without redemption payments or reduced allotments.'
P.232 Inequality and stratification would inevitably result when the peasants personally owned their allotment land and could buy and sell it...Stolypin predicted that some of the peasants who lost their lands would find work in the growing industrial cities. For others, he proposed large scale emigration to the eastern areas of the empire...[which] would remove the hapless, embittered and potentially rebellious peasants from overpopulated central Russia.'
Peter Waldron,The End of Imperial Russia P. 51
'The need for them [the peasantry] to pay for the land they farmed was wholly at odds with the fundamental belief among the peasants that, as they worked the land, they were its real owners.'
P.54 'Even where farmsteads were formed wholly separate from the village settlements, there are many examples of them being occupied only seasonally so that the peasants returned to live in the village during the winter. The attraction of the village community remained strong.'
J. N. WEstwood, Endurance and Endeavour, Russian History 1812-1992
P.79 'To the peasant, who believed the land was rightfully his, it seemed he was being compelled to buy his own property....many were in no hurry because they anticipated the land to be received would be more of a burden than an asset; it was too small to support him but entailed heavy tax and redemption payments.'
I’m not taking the pee or anything Doctor, but you can reference Anna Karenina too, it covers the subject very well.
Communists to serfs: we are going to free you. Serfs to Communists: bugger off you deluded capitalist twits, we like our way off life, we are guaranteed work and housing.
There was a distinction between serfs and peasants, though, no? Serfdom had - surely - been abolished by the twentieth century? Serfs were basically slaves, albeit slaves who had the privileges of being able to be subject to taxes and conscription.
I've read a couple of histories of Russia, though some time ago now, so I may be misremebering. They may as well have been subtitled '1000 years of sheer unrelenting bloody misery for everyone'.
Virtue signalling at its worst. Where are we better off, RT banned in the UK, the BBC banned in Russia, or both continuing broadcasting and letting viewers decide who to believe?
If the government can change the law to criminalise peaceful protest and restrict the franchise to those holding government-approved ID, it can surely do the same to restrict the broadcasting rights of an entity controlled by a murderous thug.
If the government banned RT outright, the left would complain they were trampling on the independence of Ofcom.
"Meanwhile, British farmers have already been hit with a fertiliser crisis. A block on fertiliser chemicals exported by Russia means prices have more than doubled, leaving farmers to cope with the rise alongside soaring energy bills and supply chain disruption."
Telegraph
That is good news. Encourage the use of more environmentally friendly alternatives.
That's rather too sweeping.
Chemicals always = bad Using double the land to grow the same crops and fertilise with less controllable portions of poo always = good
There's a million nuances in between and "most natural" and "best for environment" cannot be treated as synonyms.
@Farooq Three books, picked at random from my library on the subject;
Alexander Polunov, Russia in the Nineteenth Century P.106 'The peasants could not accept such prominent features of the [1861] reform as the preservation of gentry landholding and the redemption of their allotments...the peasants began to suspect the Tsar had been deceived...rumours arose of a scheduled hour or promised hour when the Tsar would announce real emancipation to them, without redemption payments or reduced allotments.'
P.232 Inequality and stratification would inevitably result when the peasants personally owned their allotment land and could buy and sell it...Stolypin predicted that some of the peasants who lost their lands would find work in the growing industrial cities. For others, he proposed large scale emigration to the eastern areas of the empire...[which] would remove the hapless, embittered and potentially rebellious peasants from overpopulated central Russia.'
Peter Waldron,The End of Imperial Russia P. 51
'The need for them [the peasantry] to pay for the land they farmed was wholly at odds with the fundamental belief among the peasants that, as they worked the land, they were its real owners.'
P.54 'Even where farmsteads were formed wholly separate from the village settlements, there are many examples of them being occupied only seasonally so that the peasants returned to live in the village during the winter. The attraction of the village community remained strong.'
J. N. WEstwood, Endurance and Endeavour, Russian History 1812-1992
P.79 'To the peasant, who believed the land was rightfully his, it seemed he was being compelled to buy his own property....many were in no hurry because they anticipated the land to be received would be more of a burden than an asset; it was too small to support him but entailed heavy tax and redemption payments.'
I’m not taking the pee or anything Doctor, but you can reference Anna Karenina too, it covers the subject very well.
Communists to serfs: we are going to free you. Serfs to Communists: bugger off you deluded capitalist twits, we like our way off life, we are guaranteed work and housing.
I haven't read Anna Karenina yet, but give its publication date it seems likelier that you're referring to the "Going to the People", which was a Narodist project. That is, a populist precursor to later traditions that included Communists, but not just them.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.
Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?
Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes
Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No
The naivety, or doublespeak, is also staggering. If a former security contact of the Russian state and Putin says he's no longer in that line of work, we can also obviously *entirely* trust him. After all, people trained in espionage or security work are always entirely honest about this sort of thing, by definition.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.
Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?
Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes
Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No
The naivety, or doublespeak, is also staggering. If a former security contact of the Russian state and Putin says he's no longer in that line of work, we can obviously *entirely* trust him. After all, people trained in espionage are always entirely honest about this sort of thing, by definition.
Its not just taking them at their word, the Courts have already looked into this and ruled on it. As too presumably have the security services?
Do you not have faith in the rule of law? Should we just disregard what the courts say without any evidence?
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.
Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?
Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes
Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No
Nobody is buying influence of a PM. British citizens are entitled to donate to political parties and you've accepted that he is a British citizen.
So under what procedure should you strip his rights away, when he's a British citizen that the courts have already ruled is persecuted by Putin?
From the same Reuters article. This is paying for influence.
"Temerko spoke warmly about his “friend” Johnson, telling how the two men sometimes call each other “Sasha,” the Russian diminutive for Alexander, which is Johnson’s real first name. He described how, at the beginning of Johnson’s tenure as Foreign Secretary from 2016 to 2018, they would often “plot” late into the evening over a bottle of wine on the balcony of Johnson’s office at parliament in Westminster."
As stated my control would be a max £1k political donation per year from any individual, business or union, which would make these issues irrelevant. Until then it should be political parties and leaders exercising responsibility or facing public flak when they dont!
"Meanwhile, British farmers have already been hit with a fertiliser crisis. A block on fertiliser chemicals exported by Russia means prices have more than doubled, leaving farmers to cope with the rise alongside soaring energy bills and supply chain disruption."
Telegraph
1997 won’t be repeated in the farming communities, they will be out in force voting Conservative at the next GE, Is my prediction. We have a Tory government not doing much to court them though, so voting results between now and the election could raise a few eyebrows though.
There won't be much of a farming community by then I suspect.
Utterly ridiculous hyperbole. I must have missed all the fields lying fallow as no one can afford to farm them.
The handouts to farming from global Britain government for conservation rather than intensive farming could be long term transformative. The government seem to work on rule of thumb that competitive imports are only good for UK and consumers. Tories are not remotely protectionist of our farming industry anymore. However other factories and work depend on what British farmers grow for them, so it can be a bit unsettling and the party needs to do more cuddling of the farming communities right now. That’s my opinion as a Chelsea dwelling daughter of someone who calls himself a farmer. 🙂
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.
Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?
Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes
Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No
The naivety, or doublespeak, is also staggering. If a former security contact of the Russian state and Putin says he's no longer in that line of work, we can obviously *entirely* trust him. After all, people trained in espionage are always entirely honest about this sort of thing, by definition.
Again if this were for a junior MoD job and an uncle had worked with the FSB they would not get in. Yet bung a couple of million and go straight to the top which makes all the vetting at the bottom mostly irrelevant.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.
That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.
Who is he? Temerko?
UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.
If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.
I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.
Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.
What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?
Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.
And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?
From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.
Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.
"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."
"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."
"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."
Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.
Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?
Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes
Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No
The naivety, or doublespeak, is also staggering. If a former security contact of the Russian state and Putin says he's no longer in that line of work, we can obviously *entirely* trust him. After all, people trained in espionage are always entirely honest about this sort of thing, by definition.
Its not just taking them at their word, the Courts have already looked into this and ruled on it. As too presumably have the security services?
Do you not have faith in the rule of law? Should we just disregard what the courts say without any evidence?
Perhaps we would know more had Big Dog complied with the ISC recommendations to investigate deeper Russian meddling in British politics. He even refused to put in a framework to bar further meddling.
That so many left-wing Britons are more interested in Putin's enemies that our courts have been sheltering from Putin's persecution, than Putin's allies, speaks volumes about their priorities.
Comments
Some former communist states have done very well. Others have not.
Macron (LREM-RE): 24.5% (+0.5)
Le Pen (RN-ID): 18% (+3)
Zemmour (REC-NI): 13.5%
Pécresse (LR-EPP): 11.5% (-2.5)
Mélenchon (LFI-LEFT): 11% (+0.5)
…
Another complete shocker for Pecresse.
Assuming Le Pen gets the nominations, I will repeat myself again and say that I can't see past Macron beating Le Pen by 60-40 in the runoff.
While it's possible the Tories have an issue here, what matters is action taken in response to Putin. The rest is for now secondary.
I note you didn't apply your lack of judgement and lack of expertise to this post I made earlier:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-honouring-a-fascist-at-each-opening-of-westminster-and-holyrood
It would be incredibly hard on politicians as individuals if they weren't allowed any moments of levity or even bombast when making what were private comments. The strain of being on message 24 hours a day would be excruciating.
We can’t do that because of the “rule of law” which people seem very happy to ignore today. It’s one of the many things that differentiates us from Putin’s Russia.
He should at the very least be very careful about making those kind of unguarded comments again, in public or private, in anything like the current situation. Banter or not, it's certainly not wise, because these kind of conversations will always leak ( see Rayner ) ; and in his job, and the current context, they're actually dangerous.
Telegraph
Pecresse voters still prefer Macron to Le Pen 41% to 28% but that too is smaller than the 48% to 20% Fillon voters voted for Macron over Le Pen by in the 2017 runoff.
https://elabe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/presidentielle-2022-focus-pecresse-et-melenchon.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_French_presidential_election
What lets the country down is its leadership. Putin. Instead of trying to raise Russia up to compete with the world, he spends his country's treasure trying to bring other countries down to his level.
People should remember that the real issue here is not the UK. It is not the west.
It is Putin and his cronies.
If the latter really is affecting the former, then that would be different, but for now that's just surmise.
It would be reasonable to ask why the Registration of Overseas Entities Bill has yet to make it through parliament despite being in the works for years.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/draft-registration-of-overseas-entities-bill
And appears to have resurfaced as a LibDem private members bill.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3098
If she got another 9% swing to her in 2027 then Le Pen would be elected President of France
The compulsory serving of asparagus at breakfast,
Free corsets for the under-fives
The abolition of slavery.
Do they get the practical economists, the quants and traders, the bankers and the military planners round a table and treat sanctions for the military campaign that they are, do they research, scenario model, test and role play how sanctions will.play out? Because, if they aren't, they should and I'm not confident that they do it to this level.
It was interesting to hear comments from Jonathan Powell on the radio yesterday about how Putin seemed to change over the years. You got the impression he could have been a good leader if constrained by effective checks and balances.
@joncstone
Brexit: Government to launch study on economic benefits of reintroducing Imperial units
https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1496443329927647235
Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.
The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.
I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?
My inability to understand French could be a drawback however.
The fact we’ve seen these measly sanction packages just emphasises how he continues to be tone death, and extremely unlikely to up his game
Oh - and Liz Truss was bloody awful on the media this morning
I'm not against the information being made available to consumers alongside metric as it already is, but it would be ludicrous to replace metric.
Nick Eardley
@nickeardleybbc
PA quoting the defence secretary in unguarded comments to members of the military: "We've got a busy adversary now in Putin, who has gone full tonto...The Scots Guards kicked the backside of Tsar Nicholas I in 1853 in Crimea - we can always do it again."
I will never understand this fetish about imperial units. I do my weight and height in it, and yes you can do small things at the same time as big things, but jesus that's a ridiculous thing to put any energy into.
Please invade
Some oligarchs, especially those active in Russia today are related to Putin, such is the nature of kleptocracies. That doesn't mean that all of them, especially the ones that since Tony Blair was PM that independent courts have ruled are being persecuted by Putin.
You asked yesterday where the left-wing Putin apologists are. Considering that you want to blame Russia's ills on Putin's enemies, to flout the rule of British law and court cases and to react to Putin's belligerence by attacking Putin's enemies instead of his allies . . . I suspect that you should look in the mirror next time you want to find a left-wing Putin apologist.
I think Boris dog whistle mistake at PMQs will be far more serious for him though - when he mentioned a Labour MP accepted £100’sK from a Chinese Spy the heckling of Starmer began. Boris should never have said that.
https://twitter.com/jennirsl/status/1496466351313010688
Alexander Polunov, Russia in the Nineteenth Century P.106
'The peasants could not accept such prominent features of the [1861] reform as the preservation of gentry landholding and the redemption of their allotments...the peasants began to suspect the Tsar had been deceived...rumours arose of a scheduled hour or promised hour when the Tsar would announce real emancipation to them, without redemption payments or reduced allotments.'
P.232 Inequality and stratification would inevitably result when the peasants personally owned their allotment land and could buy and sell it...Stolypin predicted that some of the peasants who lost their lands would find work in the growing industrial cities. For others, he proposed large scale emigration to the eastern areas of the empire...[which] would remove the hapless, embittered and potentially rebellious peasants from overpopulated central Russia.'
Peter Waldron,The End of Imperial Russia P. 51
'The need for them [the peasantry] to pay for the land they farmed was wholly at odds with the fundamental belief among the peasants that, as they worked the land, they were its real owners.'
P.54 'Even where farmsteads were formed wholly separate from the village settlements, there are many examples of them being occupied only seasonally so that the peasants returned to live in the village during the winter. The attraction of the village community remained strong.'
J. N. WEstwood, Endurance and Endeavour, Russian History 1812-1992
P.79 'To the peasant, who believed the land was rightfully his, it seemed he was being compelled to buy his own property....many were in no hurry because they anticipated the land to be received would be more of a burden than an asset; it was too small to support him but entailed heavy tax and redemption payments.'
This is simply bonkers.
For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.
I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.
Secondly, although those quotations don't really cover this, the second issue was a shortage of land, especially good land. The population of the Russian Empire rose by 50% from 82 million (estimated) in 1872 to 125 million in 1897. Obviously, if land supply was inadequate in 1861 it was not becoming less inadequate by 1905. This made it more expensive, and therefore easier for those peasants - usually those who had been lucky enough to be allocated the most productive land after 1861 - to buy more while others were left with nothing at all. Sending people to Siberia to try and establish new farmland there were for fairly obvious reasons not very successful. Many returned to Moscow and St Petersburg feeling they had been tricked of their rightful land under false pretences.
So I think you really misunderstood what was wanted, as against what was available. Certainly the hunger for land among the peasantry was very important. A nice little plot of land that they could grow grain on and keep a couple of animals was all they wanted. Unfortunately, it was never there and never going to be. THere just wasn't enough land to go round given the population explosion, not helped by the fact that nobles still owned 50% of the land as late as 1904 (Polunov 126).
THis goes a long way towards explaining both the chaos that was caused in 1905 when peasants tried to seize land by force, and the issues in 1928-31 when Stalin decided to take back land Lenin had given out freely in 1918 by force.
Hope that helps.
But messaging still unclear re whether new Russian aggression needed to trigger next 'barrage' of sanctions
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1496464486957555726
Boris totally unable to answer Margaret Hodges simple question on Duma members. This sanctions package is a complete mess at the moment.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1496464224712802306
Nicola Sturgeon has blasted Alex Salmond’s continued involvement in a Russian state-backed broadcaster following the invasion of Ukraine.
The First Minister said she was “appalled” at her predecessor and backed calls for the Kremlin-supported RT to be banned.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-appalled-alex-salmond-26308560
Virtue signalling at its worst. Where are we better off, RT banned in the UK, the BBC banned in Russia, or both continuing broadcasting and letting viewers decide who to believe?
Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.
Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?
It would be a good way to hide increases in energy prices - you get a lot more BTUs to the £ than kWh
Today on Context Free Twitter With Carlotta
The UK would definitely be better off for withdrawing RT's ability to broadcast.
It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.
Encourage the use of more environmentally friendly alternatives.
Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?
Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No
Communists to serfs: we are going to free you.
Serfs to Communists: bugger off you deluded capitalist twits, we like our way off life, we are guaranteed work and housing.
There certainly are legitimate concerns here that go beyond either slagging the Tories or just being racist against Russians.
So under what procedure should you strip his rights away, when he's a British citizen that the courts have already ruled is persecuted by Putin?
"Temerko spoke warmly about his “friend” Johnson, telling how the two men sometimes call each other “Sasha,” the Russian diminutive for Alexander, which is Johnson’s real first name. He described how, at the beginning of Johnson’s tenure as Foreign Secretary from 2016 to 2018, they would often “plot” late into the evening over a bottle of wine on the balcony of Johnson’s office at parliament in Westminster."
As stated my control would be a max £1k political donation per year from any individual, business or union, which would make these issues irrelevant. Until then it should be political parties and leaders exercising responsibility or facing public flak when they dont!
O tempora, o mores!
And given Putin's atrocities this week, why is your ire being fired at those the courts have already ruled are Putin's enemies instead of his allies? Doesn't that strike you as a tad arse over tit?
RT look likely to be in breach of Rules 5.11 and 5.12 of the Broadcasting Code and thus their license to broadcast in the UK
I've read a couple of histories of Russia, though some time ago now, so I may be misremebering. They may as well have been subtitled '1000 years of sheer unrelenting bloody misery for everyone'.
And you know it.
Chemicals always = bad
Using double the land to grow the same crops and fertilise with less controllable portions of poo always = good
There's a million nuances in between and "most natural" and "best for environment" cannot be treated as synonyms.
Do you not have faith in the rule of law? Should we just disregard what the courts say without any evidence?
Happy to explain if it doesn’t make sense.
Can't think why.