What exactly do MPs, of all
parties, reckon the role of the Leader of the Opposition to be? Do they really
want a supine yes-man who fails to submit government actions to critical
scrutiny? Or do they want a leader who is not afraid to ask those in power the
awkward questions which remain unanswered?
Whatever the truth of the
Salisbury affair, we as the public certainly have been given no more proof that the attack on Sergei and
Yulia Skripal was authorised by the Kremlin than circumstantial evidence, such
as that Skripal was a Russian spy and a British double agent, that the fourth
generation nerve agent used, generically known as Novichok, was developed in
Russia and has a Russian nickname meaning "newcomer", and we think the Russian president is a
nasty piece of work. It might
be summed up in Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s profound observation that if
something "swims like a duck and quacks like a duck" it's probably a
duck. “Proof” seems to add up to “you have to take our word for it,” said
loudly and repeatedly. Theresa May, the Prime Minister, was more circumspect in
her Commons’ statement saying merely that it was “highly likely” that the
Russian state was responsible. According to our former ambassador in Uzbekhistan, Craig Murray - who is far better informed than me - it is highly unlikely that this "proof" is true. Read https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/the-novichok-story-is-indeed-another-iraqi-wmd-scam/. It is eye-opening.
Jeremy
Corbyn was unflinchingly direct in his condemnation of the poisoning of the
Skripals, both of the use of chemical weapons in war and on the streets. He
also condemned the Putin government and its supporters for “its human rights
abuses both at home and abroad”. But,
much to the dislike of the government benches, he also asked some pointed
technical questions, including whether they had referred the incident to the
International Office for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons. A former member of
that office and weapons inspector interviewed on Tuesday’s Today Programme
confirmed that following a whistleblower’s revelations any “advanced” state
could manufacture a chemical agent of this type. So it was also a reasonable
question to ask what particularly pointed its manufacture to Russia.
Whatever
the details of the Salisbury affair turn out to be, if we’re ever allowed to
know them (and official secrets are a well-used governmental fig leaf), far
from playing tawdry political games that proved he wouldn’t defend us (Daily
Mail), Jeremy Corbyn proved himself a serious opposition leader, unafraid to do
his job – subjecting the government to critical scrutiny and awkward
interrogation. This was evidenced in the hostile personal attack with which the
Prime Minister answered him. It is a shame that he is not receiving the support
he deserves from some members of his own Parliamentary Party.
Another
thing that seems to have riled the Conservatives is Mr Corbyn’s pointing out on
Monday how much the Tory party has received in donations from rich Russian
oligarchs now domiciled in the UK with British nationality – over £3million
since 2010, and just since Mrs May took office more than £820,000. Of course
they want to hold on to it. One wonders why these fabulously wealthy exiles
choose to buy favour with the British ruling party.
An
irony of the affair in the House of Commons is that in Russia and its
predecessor, the Soviet Union, those we most admired were the dissidents, the
brave people who dare to challenge accepted orthodoxy. And yet here the powers
that be, political, media and plutocracy do all they can to shut his dissenting voice up. It’s
perhaps no coincidence that his speech contained this comment about dissidents:
“I join with many others in this house in paying tribute to the many
campaigners in Russia for human rights and justice and democracy in that
country.” One of those no doubt was Alexei Navalny, the hero of John Sweeney’s Panorama programme last night of which Vladimir Putin was the villain.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, we should welcome the fact that we have in Parliament an opposition leader who holds our government to account - however uncomfortable that may be.
No comments:
Post a Comment