The first is directed towards those who have the chance to interrogate the Govt (media, MPs etc).
Try to explore their position on these sorts of issues - where do they stand on eg breaches of international law and the Ministerial Code, international COVID comparisons... 2/5
...free speech, the right to protest, cronyism, etc etc. How do Ministers etc seek to explain their position? Juxtapose what they said then with what they are saying now.
Which brings me to the second point. 3/5
The thread would be more effective if it contained clips from Ministers taking inconsistent positions - eg piously denouncing breaches of international law; while belittling their own 'specific and limited' breaches. 4/5
Brushing away international comparisons of COVID death rates; while celebrating the success of the UK's vaccine roll-out. Etc etc.
I was thinking perhaps 'how it started'/'how it's going'. That sort of thing. Maybe? 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The double-standards and hypocrisy of the Govt and its outriders - on almost all fronts - is dizzying. I get that it is a deliberate strategy, but really struggle to understand how so many people are taken in.
Just a few examples... 1/7
The sanctity of international commitments, Treaties and contracts. If we are prepared to breach them when it suits us, how outraged can we really be when the EU, or China, or Russia, does the same? 2/7
The Ministerial Code. Breaches by Patel and Johnson are waved away. But breaches by Nicola Sturgeon are, it seems, in a different category. 3/7
In the Sarah Everard case, there is an emerging trope - criticising those who have 'politicised' her death, and intimating that the protests would not be welcomed by her family and friends.
There are a few things here worth unpicking. Thread. 1/9
First, I am not sure on what basis people are presuming to know what Sarah's family and friends are going through, and how they are reacting to the way things are unfolding. My guess is that they have a wide range of views and thoughts. 2/9
Second, it is worth distinguishing between the publicity which Sarah's death and the investigation into it is attracting; and the broader debate about womens' safety, the role of the police and the right to protest. 3/9
Sometimes the news cycle works in ways which are incredibly jarring.
Here are three instances, from the last week, of what may be called 'cancel culture'. 1/5
First, the latest manifestation of the 'war on woke', featuring Piers Morgan and Ian Murray. We are supposed to be outraged by the 'silencing' of these people. 2/5 dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9…
Second, the Government's latest attempt to silence protestors (the Bill is due to receive its second reading on Monday). I don't think that we are supposed to notice the silencing of these people. 3/5 politics.co.uk/comment/2021/0…
These (by @hayward_katy and @NashSGC) have set me thinking about Brexit and the NI Protocol in a new way.
The EU has had to be, and will continue to be, *reactive* in the Brexit process. And it is difficult to assess how to react when faced with the UK Govt. THREAD 1/11
The EU's first choice would (I think) have been that the UK did not choose to leave the EU, but rather worked within EU structures. But, it was the UK's sovereign choice to leave, and choose to leave it did. 2/
The question was then how to manage the process of Brexit. The integrity of the single market, and the protection of the GFA, quickly emerged as the EU's primary aims. 3/