Is the UK Government Playing Russian Roulette?

I've been following the reports of the poisoning of two Russian nationals in Salisbury closely, as I suspect many others have. There seems to me to be some genuinely puzzling contradictions which need to be answered, but no-one from Government is answering them. The media seems focused on the Foreign Sec doing his war dance and shaking sticks at Russia and the fact that Jeremy Corbyn and a few others have requested evidence before making accusations against another nation (how very dare he?!)

Meanwhile, Craig Murray, a former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan (who was sacked for criticising Uzbekistan's human rights record, and for objecting to MI6's use of intelligence from the Uzbek torture chambers), has constantly maintained that the FCO officials he still has contacts with had told him there is no evidence that, whatever the substance is, it originated from Russia.

In a post on his own blog dated 20th March 2018, Craig said,

"I cannot in fact conceive of a more outlandish conspiracy theory than that the Russian government secretly manufactured and stockpiled novichoks, hidden from the OPCW, and secretly trained assassins, only to blow the whole operation on a retired spy they let out of jail ages ago."

The media has kept us updated with the "fact" that the nerve agent used was "of Russian origin", despite the destruction of the last of Russia’s stockpiles of chemical weapons being recorded in November 2017.

"Gen Ahmet Üzümcü, the director general of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which works closely with the UN, was fulsome in his praise. “This is a major achievement,” he said. The 192-member body had seemingly overseen and verified the destruction of Russia’s entire stock of chemical weapons, all 39,967 metric tons." 

Earlier today, Rob Merrick, the Deputy Political Editor of the Independent, wrote in his article,

"In fact, as the Porton Down chief executive acknowledged on Tuesday, the centre had been unable to determine if the novichok had been produced in Russia." 

We are also told by various sources, including Gary Aitkenhead, the current head of the Porton Down lab, that it is not possible to determine where a batch of novichok is made, and that it is a nerve agent to which there is no known antidote...

"Speaking to Sky News, Aitkenhead said it was not possible for scientists alone to say precisely where the novichok had been created."  ... 

"Aitkenhead said: “We were able to identify it as novichok, to identify it was a military-grade nerve agent. We have not verified the precise source,"  ... 

"He also said there was no known antidote to novichok but said Porton Down had advised Salisbury district hospital on how to treat the Skripals."

That the British Police Sergeant who was admitted to hospital affected by it has now recovered and been released from hospital, that Yulia Skripal is making a good recovery in hospital and is able to speak, yet her father is still incapacitated by the same substance seems puzzling: why would 2 out of 3 people affected by the same substance recover so quickly, yet the 3rd remain so ill?

To raise further questions, today the Russian Embassy has released the following press statement on their website:

"Embassy press officer answers question on Skripal case 

Question: The head of the Porton Down military laboratory, Gary Aitkenhead, has told Sky News that there is no antidote to negate the effects of the substance he calls “Novichok”. On the other hand, it is reported that Yulia Skripal who, according to British official statements, was poisoned by that substance, is recovering. Is there an inconsistency here?

Answer: Indeed, we note discrepancies between various British statements. That’s why we have sought clarifications from the Foreign Office, together with samples of the substance used, something that has been refused. Our questions on treatment methods used by the medics remain unanswered. In other words, we have no opportunity to directly verify whether the British have correctly identified the substance, nor whether they are correctly treating our nationals. Among other things, it remains unclear why Sgt Bailey has recovered, Yulia Skripal is recovering (if one is to believe it) while Sergei Skripal remains unconscious.

By the way, in the same interview Mr Aitkenhead said that Porton Down experts had consulted the medics on the course of treatment. We would like to know what recommendations they gave.

We have sent another diplomatic note to the Foreign Office on this matter."

So, what is the truth? Is a deadly nerve agent responsible for the hospitalisation of these people? If it is, is there an antidote, and if so why doesn't the head of the Porton Down lab know about it? If it's not a nerve agent, then what is it? Who administered it and why? And why is the UK government so insistent it is all down to the Russians when the evidence does not yet appear to support that claim?

Meanwhile, the Labour Party has 

"... called on the prime minister to launch an investigation into whether Mr Johnson broke the ministerial code."

"Shadow Cabinet Office minister, Jon Trickett, said Mr Johnson had "serious questions to answer"."

Like many others, I'm keenly interested in answers to those questions!

Voting... why bother?

If you don't vote in elections because you feel that your vote won't make a difference, please think again!

In the 2017 General Election (GE) some 12,878,460 people (40% of the vote) supported Labour candidates, whilst the Conservatives gained 13,669,883 votes - just 791,423 more than did Labour - which, due to the FPPT voting system in the UK, resulted in 55 more Tory MPs (317) than Labour MPs (262).

Stats chart by Awake the Dragon

Interestingly, at least for numbers geeks like me, if you divide the total number of votes for each of the two main parties by the number of MPs elected for each of the two main parties this is the result:

• Tory 13,669,883 votes / 317 seats = 43,122 average votes per elected MP
• Labour 12,878,460 votes / 262 seats = 49,154 average votes per elected MP

So, nationally, it could be said that each Labour MP speaks for more Labour voters than does each Tory MP for Tory voters!

However, the turnout for the 2017 GE was 32,203,481 voters, equating to 68.8% of the registered electorate of 46,807,385. This means that 14,603,904 people on the electoral register did not vote. That non-voting figure is larger than the number of voters who voted for either the Tory or the Labour party, so those votes can and would make a difference.  Add onto that the number of people eligible to vote but who are not on the electoral register, which is thought to be around a further 4 million people, and you see a different picture of voter power.

Stats chart by Awake the Dragon

What conclusion might we draw from the figures above? Clearly, that governments are elected not by a majority of the voting age population, but by a majority of the population who bothers to vote. For those who say that voting changes nothing, the figures would indicate otherwise, as if the 20 million people who were eligible to vote on 8th June 2017 had done so, the country might not be enduring yet another austerity driven government benefiting the privileged few and causing hardship and harm to many. The message really is, "EVERY VOTE COUNTS!"

To make sure that you have and keep your eligibility to vote at future elections, please make sure you are on the electoral register. See here for how: https://www.gov.uk/browse/citizenship/voting - don't put it off. There is supposed to be a fixed five year term between General Elections but, as we saw in June 2017, things can change resulting in an early GE, especially with the uncertainty of the DUP continuing to prop up the Tory government if the Irish border / BREXIT issue causes a rift.

Votes at 16 debate in Parliament

According to a report on Labour List, by Young Labour activist Leigh Drennan, on 3rd November Parliament will debate, and vote on, a proposal to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds. The proposal for Votes at 16 is supported by the Labour Party, the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the SNP in their manifestos, but is opposed by the Conservatives and UKIP. 

Just a week later the UK Youth Parliament will sit in the House of Commons, when

Members of Youth Parliament aged 11-18 take part in an annual debate in the House of Commons chamber, chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons Rt Hon John Bercow MP. They debate five issues chosen by a ballot of young people from across the UK and then vote to decide which two issues should become the UK Youth Parliament’s priority campaigns for the year ahead.

I find it rather ironic that young people from the age of 11 can take part in this, yet are told they cannot vote in Elections or Referendums until the age of 18!

Since May 2016 in Scotland people aged 16+ have been able to vote in Holyrood and local elections, but voting in General Elections and Referendums has been denied to them. 

One of the most frequently heard arguments against Votes at 16 is that 16 and 17 year olds have no clue about life or politics, so giving them the vote is a waste. This is nonsense, as shown by the quote from The Electoral Reform Society, which states, 

Since 2000, Personal, Social, Health and Citizenship Education (PSHCE) has been part of the National Curriculum. PSHCE established three overarching topics to teach students about life outside education: health and well-being, relationships, and living in the wider world. These core themes equip young citizens with knowledge that is found nowhere else in the curriculum. Together they provide young people with the first steps of a political education.

A report on the UK Parliament website states that

Those who support the extension of the franchise contend that citizenship education has made 16 and 17-year-olds more politically aware; that voting at a younger age can create a basis for political engagement later in life; and that there is an inconsistency between denying 16 and 17-year-olds a vote, but legally allowing them to take on other responsible social roles and duties. 

The debate and vote in November is an opportunity to extend the franchise to the more 1.5 million 16 and 17 year olds (representing around 2.4% of the total population) who are currently denied the right to vote and thus allow them to have a say in their future, but they are, however, allowed by law to:

• Give full consent to medical treatment
• Leave school and enter work or training
• Pay income tax and National Insurance
• Become a member of a trade union or a co-operative society
• Obtain tax credits and welfare benefits in their own right
• Consent to sexual relationships
• Get married or enter a civil partnership, with parental consent
• Change their name by deed poll
• Become a director of a company
• Serve in the armed forces but not deployed on the front line
• Ride a moped
• Apply for a provisional licence at 16 and drive a car on the road at 17
• Buy a Lotto ticket

Surely if they are old enough to contribute to society through work, taxes, the armed forces, and undertake a raft of other things, isn't it time that they had the right to vote at 16 as well?