Thread by @TweetingYet

I've been wondering about this. I'm not sure how I feel about @DJWarburton, a politician of whom I had never heard until today but with whose politics I largely disagree, pointing to my threads on the Bill in his defence of voting for it.

https://twitter.com/alexbloor/status/1372324659237163010

As a gut reaction, I suppose I dislike it. But as the great Carl Sagan once said, I try not to think with my gut.

I have been doing these posts to inform. I was moved by the rank inaccuracies, whether honest or not, in posts about the Bill.

I think that if people are going to discuss legislation, they should actually know what it says and what it means.

If somebody whose political views match mine attacks somebody with whose views I disagree but does so on a wrong factual basis, then I disagree with that attack.

In his brilliant "The American Future, A History", @simon_schama quoted an inspiring speech and then wrote that just because it was said by Dick Cheney does not necessarily make it untrue.

The same is true here.

Attacks on Tories aren't correct or justified just because they are on Tories. Equally, I like Keir Starmer but when he posted his misleading claims about the Bill I posted to correct them.

If a politician knows what the Bill puts forward and agrees with it then fine.

That is better, in my opinion, than not knowing what it says. At least we can debate what is actually right or wrong about it rather than talking nonsense about getting 10 years for attacking a statue.

So no, overall I don't mind if my posts add some facts to the debate.