I really hope you are right. The alternative is really not worth thinking about. Labour need to do better than the conservatives have on many things, but on this they need to continue with the current course of action the conservatives have set.
I refer you to Flash response, last paragraph regarding donations. We have taken action, but as queried by the OP, not nearly enough.
So what additional action, or more effective action, have the Labour party got planned for early 2024 that you are claiming we need to wait for?
How on earth do you expect me to know what Labour have planned? As I've said, there will not be the action the OP refers to until the tories are removed.
All the OP states is the civilised world takes action. As I think everyone is in agreement on the civilised world has taken action. The UK is the second biggest action taker and have committed the same or more this year. It seems to me one of the types of action that we have not done is direct conflict with Russia. I hope nobody is thinking Labour go down that route? It would be mind bogglingly disastrous. It is clear to me the action we have taken is very strong, following international law, and is coordinated with the OPs so called civilised world (whatever that is defined as). Maybe like you say once the conservatives have gone from UK government and Labour are in power in this country, the whole world will change their current course? We wont act alone mate, and a change of govt will have no impact on what the EU, or the US have been doing.
We're doing everything short of hitting them ourselves. And hitting them ourselves would instantly prove to the Russian people that what Putin is currently lying about is true. Personally I don't think Putin's nukes work any more - too many people taking their cut of the money in a kleptocracy - but it only takes one to work.
Agree, but in my opinion once the tories are removed, actions against the Russians won't be influenced by the party donations and peerage
What do you think we'd have done if the supposed influence of party donations and peerages wasn't an issue? Russians over here tend to be over here because they disagree with Putin's regime. They pile money into political parties because they want protection.
I disagree with your premise, Russians have pumped millions into London and have gained influence, along with the donations and peerage, the tories are handicapped with the amount of action they should be taking.
So what extra action would we be taking if that influence didn't exist? What is that influence stopping us from doing? If anything, I'd expect the vast majority of Russians here to be encouraging action. Like Mafia guys who were cast out support the removal of the big boss.
So you accept there's an influence? Encouraging. However, are you saying Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich, a Russian oligarch and politician, former owner of Chelsea and the primary owner of the private investment company Millhouse LLC is part of the Russian mafia? I see we are miles apart here, so any further discussion is probably not going to resolve anything.
He's a 73 year old independent MP with no power and no chance of having power. No-one is squeezing him into saying anything against Russia. He could have kept his mouth shut, but instead he's spoken against them, this year.
The Conservative government have exactly the right balance of the current situation. We don't want to support Ukraine any less than we currently do and we definitely don't want boots on the ground. I think the real criticism I have is the extent to which countries look the other way to unacceptable actions in favour of business. I think Capitalism has probably been one of the biggest reasons for peace between major nations in the world and there are obviously positives. But the Conservative government (not the only ones of course) have taken donations from Russian nationals closely associated to Russian politics and Putin. They've made the son of an ex KGB agent and close ally of Putin a lord! Whilst they are taking the correct action at this moment in time, it's almost because the world couldn't keep looking the other way. Taking stronger action against Putin over Crimea or over what the UN have alleged to be war crimes in Syria may have prevented the current situation but it would have been financially inconvenient for us to do so. We're doing a similar thing in the Middle East as well. Turning our back on Saudi Arabian war crimes in Yemen because action would jeopardise our arms deals with them. In addition to that we have the donations from those with political and business interests. Ken Costa, Bin-Salman's "point man" in the UK has personally funded both the Conservative Party and Jeremy Hunt. Jamie Reuben has donated over £800k to the Conservatives and donated £50k to Boris Johnson personally. Is it any co-incidence that Johnson intervened to allow the takeover of our friends up the road by a consortium comprising of the Saudi Government and the Reuben brothers? Saudi can sports wash their evil deeds, the arms/oil deals can carry on, the Reuben brothers can get even richer and Boris gets some funding... everyone's happy except for the Yemeni citizens. The Conservatives are not the only culpable party in this kind of behaviour by the way, they're just the current custodians of power and it's misuse. We seem to so often ignore long term consequences in favour of immediate convenience. I'd say that's an issue that affects national infrastructure and assets too, but that's a different topic.
No, you've made the influence claim. Claims require at least some logic behind them. What else could we be doing if the influence you claim wasn't there? Would we be bombing Russian cities, for example? Boots on the ground?
Good post. Agree with most of it. I certainly agree the conservatives have exactly the right balance on this. I say that as a traditional Labour voter, with a strong sense of traditional labour values. The donations to political parties, and to politician offices, is an area of our current system that needs a thorough review. I dont like all of what I see here. The conservatives as you say have taken donations for russian interests. I see no evidence though it has had any negative effect on our actions in support of Ukraine, or indeed sanctions on Russia. Labour too se to take dubious donations. Wasnt there a chinese interest story recently? I seem to recall reading Reeves office taking donations from people with links to gambling firms. I doubt it will influence any policy when she is chancellor. Whilst our political parties and politicians seem to have a 'need' to accept donatioms to run their offices, I suppose people will always question outcomes.
Great post flash, though my opinion on the tories is that their actions are influenced by the Russian donations and peerage. Without these I'm sure a Labour government would go further.
What more could any government do short of joining in? It's not a Labour specific question. Or - what is it the Tories aren't doing because of this supposed Russian influence on them? They can't be difficult questions, surely - you seem so certain, you've evidently thought it all the way through.
