She has a good track record of brokering international deals that lead to strong and stable domestic leadership and strong public backing.
May's deal famously united the nation and gave her administration authority that no other administration in a century has enjoyed.
I can't actually tell if he's joking or deadly serious.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ben Pile

Ben Pile Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @clim8resistance

11 Oct
From 45 minutes to ready WMDs, to Covid's mode of transmission, there is a pattern to craven, morally bankrupt authoritarianism...

It is "denial" that vexes them more than the putative threat.
It is always about *denial*.

It's not hard to read this as terror about loss of control of narrative.

Accusations of "denial" are the shortcut to proving the interlocutor's bad faith: nefarious connections, sinister motivations, profit-seeking and malign intent.
Read 6 tweets
11 Oct
And another. Quotes a line from the piece which is its fig leaf, as though it was not the piece's fig leaf.
The piece in summary is "There should be no expectation that scientists fall into line with a consensus.... Except that scientists who do not fall into line with a consensus are industry-funded propagandists who are only in it for the money".
Throughout the piece, claims like "it is misleading to suggest that giving up on suppression is anything but an outlier position" go unsubstantiated.

Even the WHO has now stated a position AGAINST lockdowns.

She's a bullshit artist.
Read 10 tweets
11 Oct
Another wonk favourably retweeting mere smear because it's superficially clothed in recent academic thinking.

Fig leaves are flapping in the wind.
I find this extraordinary. In the background to claims that the GBD's authors were wrong is the fact that the models used to drive policy were wrong, authored by a team of people who have a much longer history of being wrong.
This isn't about using science to find the best way forward under uncertainty. It's about defending institutional science and its intransigent panjandrums.
Read 7 tweets
11 Oct
The wonk's job is to protect the institutions of wonkery.

Smears are more effective than science; debate is anathema to the clergy.
I wonder if she's really so keen on testing scientists for 'issue advocacy' when her views -- and her paper's views -- align.

Pielke's broader work on issue advocacy would suggest otherwise...

(Typo -- Align with the science, that is).

If there is alignment, then Guardian/Observer journalists seem reluctant to address the matter of issue advocacy.

Which leads to alarmist editorials like this...

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Read 20 tweets
10 Oct
This is broadly right. The 'great reset' is hardly a secret.

*FAR* too much emphasis is given to *artefacts* of global politics such as the GR, and "agenda 21", and all that, at the cost of looking at the facts of global politics, and what may be driving it.
So, yes, it's i) anti-democratic, ii) a power grab, iii) a land grab, iv) a wealth grab, v) utterly illegitimate...

But it's also being given away freely by virtue of a f***ing dreadful political establishment, appointed *by* *us*, which cannot tell its own a*se from its elbow.
And they are all truly weird. They want to design your lifestyle, your city, your life, to intervene in, monitor, regulate and control your every decision. And it's a bizarre compact of academia, "science", global institutions, govts, corps.

But it's all totally degenerate.
Read 9 tweets
9 Oct
The Gaurdian is just a smear sheet. Smear is the only way it knows to confront positions it disagrees with.

It cannot accept that anyone can hold a different opinion to its own line in good faith.

It therefore projects its own bad faith onto others.

unherd.com/thepost/is-the…
I've been smeared in the Guardian, and by Guardian journalists, as have many others. I've never been asked "why do you believe X", I've only been told "you believe X".
The closest I ever came to an actual discussion of substance with a Guardian "journalist", we found a point of disagreement, and he said "we'll have to agree to disagree about that", rather than discuss it. Instead, he wanted to tell me about my "ideology".
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!