Who do you think is doing the best job in dealing with Russia?
 

Y'all know how much I disapprove of Theresa but she's doing a pretty good job on Russia if I do say so.

The PM is doing a grand job.

Yep. She would have my vote any day if we voted on just foreign affairs.

How is Corbyn meant to deal with it when he isn’t PM? He can comment but it’s not like he can act :conf:

I meant in terms of his reaction

It doesn't matter, this obsession with Corbyn is just a distraction for most people, a meaningless distraction. It'll be years until the next election and we need to focus on the here and now.

I fink Theresa might win bcos she has been teh most consistent lol but mayb Jeremy mite win bcos he has bn more entertaining at times but I gess well find out when the finals night comes.

Who has had a better reaction to a Russian poisoning?

But if an odd thread to make I guess but ok

After watching this play out for a few days i’m going for neither.Plus this Corbyn vs May crap is below the severity of this situation.This is’nt Big Brother.If this goes tits up the losers will be all of us.

Exactly!

Well it certainly isn’t Corbyn is it - all useless talk and no action!

But in all seriousness, corbyn is as able to act as you or i. He is not able to do anything as leader of the opposition other than give his opinion

He could have put his political ideals aside for this and stood by his country to show bullies like Putin that Britain won’t cow down to him and his threats.

He is more than you and I in the political arena as the potential next PM with a lot of young people following his every word - so although I understand what you are saying, I think he had a responsibility to support the current government on this issue. It is bigger than party politics.

Indeed.

I would say neither, too. But this ****ing ridiculous May V Corbyn stuff is so annoying now. On an issue as large as this, its still just tit for tat bickering and 'my dick is bigger than your dick' nonsense.

How can he take action when he's not PM?

He could stand with the government as other Labour MPs did. This is not about him being PM but about the country.

Oooh, I get it, you want him to stop spouting the opinion he's entitled to have and get in line with everyone else.

How very 1984.

May and Johnson lied when they claimed we had the entire backing of the UN. The French government thought we were being too hasty and wanted further investigations before any action was taken. The Italian government also wanted more concrete proof. You don't need a long memory to recall Blair making the same false claim about weapons of mass destruction and going to war in Iran.

Russian news is saying that the British government did this to take the nations eye off all the internal squabbling in parliament. I don't believe that but what if the Russian government are innocent in this? what have we done and without any real proof?

I don't know what to think to be honest. After the heinous lies Thatcher did with the Falklands and the lie upon lie Blairs spun out to the public about WMD, I don't trust the British government anymore than I trust the Russian government.

I think the Russians did this but I don't think it was the Russian government but that's just a strong hunch.

The thing is, what was the point in killing him? If the Russians wanted to kill someone in a foreign country, why would they use a nerve agent that could be traced back to them? There's no clear motive for doing it. The method used is irrational unless you wanted to make a statement that it was a Russian assassination and that would be a deliberate provocation to go to war. The nerve agent is the most puzzling thing in this whole sorry affair.

Indeed DR. The narrative is that the Russian government carried out an assassination using a nerve agent that could only have come from a Russian source, clearly announcing that it was them, when they could have used any one of dozens of alternative - and less traceable - methods ... But then when asked about it, decided to deny it.

There's absolutely zero logic in any of it. If they didn't care about people knowing it was them, they would just admit to it. If they DID care about people knowing it was them, they SURELY wouldn't have used a Russian nerve agent. There are only two possible options really. Either there are an awful lot of completely, utterly, comically incompetent people in high up positions on world government and intelligence... Or we're not being told even a fraction of the whole story. I know which I think is more likely.

I think it is likely that it could be Russia leaving a calling card but then denying it publicly on the world stage.They do have form for this kind of thing.
Show the Russian people how much reach Putin has etc.But then again it would be an incredibly risky and brazen act.Would they go as far as to use a nerve agent?
However nobody is certain.It may not be.It’s perplexing because to me the arguments for and against both make sense.
But i think caution and clear heads are of paramount importance.Also evidence.Maybe our secret services know more than we’re being told.But if not we shouldn’t be rushing into escalating tensions even more.

Russia would never outright admit what is a flagrant breach of international law. It is quite possible though that they are happy for both other governments and potential targets like Skripov to know that they can carry out this sort of thing and also largely get away with it. It's obvious from their reaction that they don't really give a s**t about the whole thing

We have had rational discussion from Corbyn, from the tories? Distasteful popularity parades through Salisbury... Fist bumps, hashtags and what looks like a jumped up tea boy telling putin to 'shut up.'

LOL

May talks ****e, always has always will!

:joker::joker::joker::joker::joker:

He isn't Prime Minister! :joker::joker::joker:

Yet!!! :D

not voting on this, they both reacted adequately

Did Corbyn administer CPR?

There has already been a national poll on this subject carried out by sky news which I posted on another thread. The overwhelming majority were with May.
As for those in Parliament, the majority are also with May, including most Labour opposition MP's.
May made it clear she suspected the Russians or that alternatively the Russians had lost control of the nerve gas. She has never directly accused Putin himself unlike Boris did or told the Russians to 'shut up' like the uk defence secretary did. These incompetents should should shut up and leave the talking to May.

As for Corbyn, he was his usual boring self, opposing anything pro - British in his usual 'I'M SUCH A REBEL, LOOK AT ME, I'M WINDSWEPT AND INTERESTING' style which has never got him any recognition or did good for anyone and he's now in that pathetic last ditch attempt stage desperately wanting to be relevant now he's approaching retirement age.

...well Russia hasn’t been ‘dealt with’ yet...it’s a continuing and worrying story...so it’s hard../..impossible to say whether ‘Theresa’s way’ or ‘Jeremy’s way’....is the best...because ‘outcome’ is the all important thing, which is unknown atm...

Exactly and a very important point.

I think May, for all her faults and she has plenty, is a lot stronger with this kind of situation. She was quite strong with the terroist attacks as well. I just don't get the Corbyn love in at all and he is terribly weak when it comes to any kind of conflict. He would be a dreadful PM.

He promises miracle cures - and wouldn’t we all like some of those.

He reminds me of the leaders of some religious cults - full of promises and rhetoric to gain favour but with little in the way of practical solutions or ability to transpose words into actions. That makes him dangerous in my book as vulnerable and gullible people will jump on every word.

His views on Russia are very dangerous in my view and again demonstrate his inability to face reality instead harping on about talking - to Putin!!! It should be obvious to all that Putin doesn’t do talking - his word is law. Now he is a man of action - but not in a good way.

I think waiting to see who is directly responsible for the poisoning is pretty much the right line of inquiry so I have been a little hesitant to just assume the Russian government - or those who control the Russian government - are behind it. The idea of it being some mafioso with an axe to grind is just as plausible, a former business client, someone he (the former spy) exposed... the tendency to just assume Russia are entirely and openly corrupt seems a bit too simplistic and naive. I'm aware of double bluffs but using nerve agents that can only be traced back to your own country, would that really be the weapon of a Russian state?