UK Politics Thread

[Furunculus]

Just how compromised is this government by a country which we should have been suspicious of, and that is now openly showing to be hostile?

Compared to who?

To be clear - i want to see an end of this money too, if only because i don't want london to facilitate the accumulation of money sourced from russian corruption.

But the implication here is that this money is buying influence in foriegn policy with regards to Russia, and I simply don't see any evidence of that. UK is among the the most hawkish of european nations when it comes to actions that hinder Russia's own foriegn policy goals.

[Pannonian]

Compared to who?

To be clear - i want to see an end of this money too, if only because i don't want london to facilitate the accumulation of money sourced from russian corruption.

But the implication here is that this money is buying influence in foriegn policy with regards to Russia, and I simply don't see any evidence of that. UK is among the the most hawkish of european nations when it comes to actions that hinder Russia's own foriegn policy goals.

Russia's primary foreign policy goal in the past 10 years is to weaken the western bloc so that it is free to do whatever it likes. Detach individual western states from their alliances so Russia does not face a unified opposition. The UK, and in particular the Tories, are more hostile towards the EU than towards Russia.

[Pannonian]

Photo of the current foreign secretary and then PM May with Russian donor who gave 1.8 million to the Tory party, making her one of the biggest female donors to the Tories. Said donor is married to man with close links with Kremlin. Several other (former and current) female cabinet members in that photo.

Back in the day, this would be a matter for resignation. Certainly a matter for surveillance and should be nowhere near cabinet.

[Montmorency]

Compared to who?

To be clear - i want to see an end of this money too, if only because i don't want london to facilitate the accumulation of money sourced from russian corruption.

But the implication here is that this money is buying influence in foriegn policy with regards to Russia, and I simply don't see any evidence of that. UK is among the the most hawkish of european nations when it comes to actions that hinder Russia's own foriegn policy goals.

To address the substance of your question, with donations being toward party organizations in the UK and not typically toward individual candidates (IIRC), it's doubtful that oligarchs, lobbyists, or anyone else are trying to induce formally pro-Russian foreign policy out of UK governance. Russia's priority has instead repeatedly been to sustain corruption and undermine political stability (though if the pro-Russian domestic constituency were as large as the anti-EU one in the UK of course the Russians would have leveraged it by now). Russian commercial interests must care more about special visas and loose money laundering rules than Ukraine policy, which is more transparent (and also inconsequential to them personally). Sustaining a certain behavior rather than changing course

(Maybe Starmer could up his game and accuse Johnson of defunding the police for allowing the National Crime Agency's real budget to decline and financial crime prosecutions to plummet.)

And it's pretty likely the specified Russian priorities can be better enabled by supporting Conservatives over Labour. What happens with the Economic Crime Bil, huh? Lack of action from this point on would implictly affirm the governing party's ideological or self-interested stake in maintaining the 'free port' of the UK's financial and property markets.

[Pannonian]

To address the substance of your question, with donations being toward party organizations in the UK and not typically toward individual candidates (IIRC), it's doubtful that oligarchs, lobbyists, or anyone else are trying to induce formally pro-Russian foreign policy out of UK governance. Russia's priority has instead repeatedly been to sustain corruption and undermine political stability (though if the pro-Russian domestic constituency were as large as the anti-EU one in the UK of course the Russians would have leveraged it by now). Russian commercial interests must care more about special visas and loose money laundering rules than Ukraine policy, which is more transparent (and also inconsequential to them personally). Sustaining a certain behavior rather than changing course

(Maybe Starmer could up his game and accuse Johnson of defunding the police for allowing the National Crime Agency's real budget to decline and financial crime prosecutions to plummet.)

And it's pretty likely the specified Russian priorities can be better enabled by supporting Conservatives over Labour. What happens with the Economic Crime Bil, huh? Lack of action from this point on would implictly affirm the governing party's ideological or self-interested stake in maintaining the 'free port' of the UK's financial and property markets.

One of the EU laws coming in at the time that we took ourselves out of the EU was one requiring transparency of finance. Which strikes at the money laundering that benefits much of the super rich in the UK or who conduct their operations in the UK.

Brexit primarily concretely benefits the dirty money economy. Which is good for Russia two-fold: firstly it makes the UK a safe place to dump their money, and secondly it weakens both the UK (severely) and the EU. Hence the willingness of Russia to invest in this (cf. Aaron Banks and those bot factories operating from Russia). Although I'd call the willingness of UK agents to take their money and hide their impact treasonous. The Commons committee on intelligence and security found that the UK government found no evidence of Russian involvement in Brexit because they actively avoided looking for it. Be wary of any explanation that's worded along the lines of "I am not aware that..."

[Furunculus]

Russia's primary foreign policy goal in the past 10 years is to weaken the western bloc so that it is free to do whatever it likes. Detach individual western states from their alliances so Russia does not face a unified opposition. The UK, and in particular the Tories, are more hostile towards the EU than towards Russia.

How has Russian money achieved this?

[Pannonian]

In British PM race, a former Russian tycoon quietly wields influence

Publicly, industrialist and Conservative Party donor Alexander Temerko presents himself as an opponent of Brexit and a dissident critic of Vladimir Putin. In conversations with this reporter, he’s voiced strong support for Boris Johnson’s bid to lead Britain out of the EU, praised senior Russian intelligence officials and spoken about his past work with the Kremlin.

For almost a decade, Alexander Temerko, who forged a career at the top of the Russian arms industry and had connections at the highest levels of the Kremlin, has been an influential figure in British politics. He’s one of the Conservative Party’s major donors. He counts Boris Johnson, the frontrunner to be Britain’s next PM, among his friends.

Temerko, born in what was then Soviet Ukraine, presents himself in public as an entrepreneur who opposes Britain’s departure from the European Union because it’s bad for his UK energy business, and as a dissident critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But in more than half a dozen conversations with this reporter, conducted over the past three years as part of research for a book, he showed a different side of his career and views.

Temerko revealed himself to be a supporter of Johnson’s bid to lead Britain out of the EU, describing the 2016 public vote to leave the bloc as a “revolution against bureaucracy.” He praised senior Russian security officials, including the current and former heads of the Federal Security Service (FSB), successor to the KGB, and proudly recalled his past work with Russia’s Defence Ministry.

These new insights into Temerko’s private thinking about Johnson, Brexit and Russia come as the ruling Conservative Party is choosing its next leader, and as some British MPs are increasingly wary of possible Russian influence over British politics.

How compromised is our government?

[Furunculus]

In British PM race, a former Russian tycoon quietly wields influence



How compromised is our government?

Indeed, how compromised is it?

[Pannonian]

RT cites Nigel Farage as someone who doesn't lay the blame entirely at Russia's feet, but says that the west is partly to blame.

What's that about funding and influence?

[Furunculus]

RT cites Nigel Farage as someone who doesn't lay the blame entirely at Russia's feet, but says that the west is partly to blame.

What's that about funding and influence?

who cares what farage thinks?

-----------------------------

[UPDATE] - i keep asking what (foriegn) policy effect all that money sloshing around the british political system is having, and i have found it!

not foriegn policy directly, but its the british anti-fracking dilberts:

https://twitter.com/mattwridley/stat...63130719760389

[rory_20_uk]

Europe is blocking removing Russia from the SWIFT payment system so they can continue to buy Russian oil and gas.

That is a far more important factor as currently the EU are directly paying for the war.

[Pannonian]

Europe is blocking removing Russia from the SWIFT payment system so they can continue to buy Russian oil and gas.

That is a far more important factor as currently the EU are directly paying for the war.

Not much we can directly do about them. We're not part of them. Farage is a UK citizen who's been extremely influential in our politics, and it's clear that he's in Russian pay. Forgive me if I want to highlight Russian agents amongst us.

[Crandar]

Is it really worth it to pay a nobody like Farage? In my opinion, that's just his own initiative, a desperate attempt to become relevant again, by differentiating himself from the mainstream opinion and approaching the anti-establishment crowd. Obviously, sympathy towards Russia is a minority feeling in the United Kingdom, but for small fish like Farage, it might be better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

[Pannonian]

UK imposes sanctions on Russian banks. But gives their biggest bank 30 days in which to withdraw their assets.

What's the point? Does it really merit the label of "sanctions"?

[rory_20_uk]

UK imposes sanctions on Russian banks. But gives their biggest bank 30 days in which to withdraw their assets.

What's the point? Does it really merit the label of "sanctions"?

I'm not a banker but I would have thought that - just like with the 2008 crisis - it is equally liquidity that matters and if the banks can't trade with those outside the country it would still bite. And unless the banks have gold bullion or other physical assets, they can (and probably did) withdraw as much as they were able to within seconds of the S word was mentioned.

[Pannonian]

I'm not a banker but I would have thought that - just like with the 2008 crisis - it is equally liquidity that matters and if the banks can't trade with those outside the country it would still bite. And unless the banks have gold bullion or other physical assets, they can (and probably did) withdraw as much as they were able to within seconds of the S word was mentioned.

Why afford them the gap at all?

[Pannonian]

So the oligarchs are allowed to keep their UK assets. It should be noted that the Tory party has been receiving money from those prominent Russian donors as recently as late last year, and Tory ministers (including the foreign secretary) have said that there is nothing untoward about it, and that they will not be handing that money back.

This Tory government is funded by Russian top brass, and unashamedly so.

[Furunculus]

what has Russia bought for its money?

i think this is about the fourth time i have asked.

[rory_20_uk]

So the oligarchs are allowed to keep their UK assets. It should be noted that the Tory party has been receiving money from those prominent Russian donors as recently as late last year, and Tory ministers (including the foreign secretary) have said that there is nothing untoward about it, and that they will not be handing that money back.

This Tory government is funded by Russian top brass, and unashamedly so.

Which law would enable the confiscation of these assets? Or is it just a crime to be a rich Russian? Does UK law apply in other sovereign state now? Bring back the Star Court... And this does raise the question of why the UK didn't do this in any other case where something illegal happened. The rule of law when it suits I suppose.

And then if these assets were to be taken, what would stop all UK assets being taken in Russia - not to mention court cases here and abroad.

Truly, an approach stolen from the headlines of the Daily Mail.

[Pannonian]

Which law would enable the confiscation of these assets? Or is it just a crime to be a rich Russian? Does UK law apply in other sovereign state now? Bring back the Star Court... And this does raise the question of why the UK didn't do this in any other case where something illegal happened. The rule of law when it suits I suppose.

And then if these assets were to be taken, what would stop all UK assets being taken in Russia - not to mention court cases here and abroad.

Truly, an approach stolen from the headlines of the Daily Mail.

The UK government proudly announced sanctions against 5 Russian banks and 3 Russian oligarchs at the start of all this, so it's not a matter of principle; it was possible, as they'd shown. The French government is seizing assets I think, so it's not outlandish as far as western European law goes. And at the very least, those on the Navalny list should be targeted, with some of them already internationally sanctioned even before this.

Also, what do you think of the money from Russian oligarchs paid to the Tory party? Cleverly and Truss, among others, have said that there is nothing untoward about this, and that they're not handing it back. Is there a law against this as well, or a matter of principle? Chernukhin, she who paid 150k for a tennis match with Boris Johnson, and she who's married to a former Putin minister, donated something like 80k to the Tories late last year. Do you think this is completely above board? Or the other Russian donors to the Tory party, none of whom faced any sanctions at the time the Tory government boasted it was leading the way against Russia (but other oligarchs who hadn't recently donated to the Tories did face sanctions).

All completely above board, despite inconsistencies in application of nebulous principles. All is ok as long as you pay the Tory party.

[rory_20_uk]

The UK government proudly announced sanctions against 5 Russian banks and 3 Russian oligarchs at the start of all this, so it's not a matter of principle; it was possible, as they'd shown. The French government is seizing assets I think, so it's not outlandish as far as western European law goes. And at the very least, those on the Navalny list should be targeted, with some of them already internationally sanctioned even before this.

Also, what do you think of the money from Russian oligarchs paid to the Tory party? Cleverly and Truss, among others, have said that there is nothing untoward about this, and that they're not handing it back. Is there a law against this as well, or a matter of principle? Chernukhin, she who paid 150k for a tennis match with Boris Johnson, and she who's married to a former Putin minister, donated something like 80k to the Tories late last year. Do you think this is completely above board? Or the other Russian donors to the Tory party, none of whom faced any sanctions at the time the Tory government boasted it was leading the way against Russia (but other oligarchs who hadn't recently donated to the Tories did face sanctions).

All completely above board, despite inconsistencies in application of nebulous principles. All is ok as long as you pay the Tory party.

I'm unclear who exactly you are expecting to defend the Tory party. They're bad. I don't like them. What they did is only legal since they and their kind make the laws. They maintain power by being marginally more electable than labour. The same Labour who had eleven MPs who signed a letter blaming NATO on the situation in Ukraine. They are realistically the two options our system allows. And we celebrate our Head of State overseeing this for 70 years.

And doing a few illegal things is hardly a framework for doing many illegal things - Blair's war in Iraq hardly created a common law framework for what he did.

[Pannonian]

I'm unclear who exactly you are expecting to defend the Tory party. They're bad. I don't like them. What they did is only legal since they and their kind make the laws. They maintain power by being marginally more electable than labour. The same Labour who had eleven MPs who signed a letter blaming NATO on the situation in Ukraine. They are realistically the two options our system allows. And we celebrate our Head of State overseeing this for 70 years.

And doing a few illegal things is hardly a framework for doing many illegal things - Blair's war in Iraq hardly created a common law framework for what he did.

So the Tory government gets to boast about the few sanctions they imposed, lying about their leading the world in this as they always do, whilst not laying a hand on those who've been giving them money. Party above country, supposed principles being held to explain their MO of helping their friends whilst screwing the country over.

The register of foreign owned property won't come into place until autumn 2023 at the earliest, plenty of time for oligarchs to dispose of their properties and move their assets back to somewhere unreachable. Thanks to Navalny, we know of at least some of these oligarch-owned properties. Which are untouched even now.

[rory_20_uk]

So the Tory government gets to boast about the few sanctions they imposed, lying about their leading the world in this as they always do, whilst not laying a hand on those who've been giving them money. Party above country, supposed principles being held to explain their MO of helping their friends whilst screwing the country over.

The register of foreign owned property won't come into place until autumn 2023 at the earliest, plenty of time for oligarchs to dispose of their properties and move their assets back to somewhere unreachable. Thanks to Navalny, we know of at least some of these oligarch-owned properties. Which are untouched even now.

How about we just take it for granted that the Tory government undertakes selfish acts for either survival or monetary gain and we can view things that diverge from this as "newsworthy". This is getting about as fruitful as posting about every single shooting incident in the USA.

[Pannonian]

Now they're preparing to seize oligarch assets. So not doing so before wasn't due to some inalienable principle after all, but just a matter of them choosing not to do so.

[Pannonian]

At Prime Minister's Questions, Boris Johnson told MPs the actions the UK had taken in response to the invasion of Ukraine "are having an effect in Moscow".

He said the UK had sanctioned "275 individuals already, a further 100 last week, the impact is being felt".

Mr Johnson has referred to the 100 figure several times in the past week. But when Reality Check asked for the names of the 100, the government could not provide them and said: "We'll let you know as soon as we have further details to add."

Instead, it sent a list of every person and company currently sanctioned by the UK, including people from Iran and North Korea. It shows that 15 individuals have been sanctioned in the past week:

BBC Reality Check

Claim by PM in Parliament: 100
Reality as checked: 15

Nothing this Tory government says can be trusted.

[Pannonian]

So much for me taking the government's word at taking new action. It turns out the UK is one of the countries with the fewest effective sanctions against Russia. Despite the claims of the Chief Liar and his acolytes, the EU leads the way with sanctions against nearly 500 entities, with Canada, Australia and Switzerland also around 400. The US has sanctions against over 100. The UK has sanctions against 16.

The Tory government needs to answer questions on oath about the Russian money they've been receiving and any policies they've enacted favouring Russian oligarchs.

[Pannonian]

Chief liar: "The UK is way out in front in our willingness to help with refugees."

Number of Ukrainian refugees: over 1 million.
Number of Ukrainian refugees admitted into UK: 50.

Edit: You could probably house the whole lot in a confiscated oligarch mansion. That's if we actually confiscated that is, which we don't.

[Pannonian]

Ukrainian refugees admitted by UK: 50
Ukrainian refugees admitted by Ireland: 1800
Ukrainian refugees admitted by Canada: 6100

In related news, Boris Johnson overruled security services who advised against giving Evgeny Lebedev a peerage. Ministers have tried to excuse this by saying that Lord Lebedev has never made a speech or voted in the House of Lords. Meanwhile, Lord Lebedev has a pet dog called Boris.

[Pannonian]

The Media Briefing Room in Downing Street was renovated, at great cost, by a Russian-owned company. No security issues there at all.

[Pannonian]

Guido Fawkes is, in his own words, a close associate of a Russian spy. Not just that, he entered into a business relationship with him, after learning he was a Russian spy. The son of a KGB general, no less.

Just how much of the right who've shaped our government in recent years are traitors who've been bought by the Russians?