Anyone who's had people with drug addiction in their lives knows it's a health problem.
They've often suffered trauma, and can't get the support they need because it's so badly resourced.
Yet the Tories propose further criminalisation purely to pander to clueless reactionaries.
What's worse is politicians *know* legal crackdowns on drugs don't work
In 2002 David Cameron said: "I ask the Labour government not to return to retribution and war on drugs." As Prime Minister, he pursued those policies
They're doing this entirely for cynical partisan reasons
Watching politicians inflict pain on some of the country's most vulnerable people for electoral gain and nothing else isn't new, but it doesn't become any less nauseating.
Labour too know the war on drugs is a failed madness, but they're now defined by cowardice and nothing else
Incoherent reactionary nonsense from Yvette Cooper, calling for the government to be even more hardline on drugs.
A rational Labour party would look to Portugal, which successfully treats drugs as a health, rather than a criminal, problem.
This is not a rational Labour party.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Keir Starmer's team have a habit of briefing things which are not true.
In this case, they're (once again!) briefing against Starmer's own deputy - essentially accusing her of dishonesty - while she's doing a massive speech on Tory corruption.
It's as nasty as it is shambolic.
Starmer's team's treatment of Angela Rayner:
😡 Scapegoating her for the Hartlepool defeat and sacking her
😡 Briefing against her choice of clothing
😡 Only belatedly defending her when she was subjected to death threats (angering her friends)
Absolutely baffling to watch liberal journalists shocked at The Spectator doing a gushing interview with a French far right extremist.
They were silent when it published articles defending Greek neo Nazis, praising the Wehrmacht and arguing there wasn’t enough Tory Islamophobia
It’s almost as if they didn’t want to upset people in the same professional and social circles, didn’t want to threaten juicy writing commissions, and wanted invites to Spectator parties.
They hate me for saying this, because they know it’s all true, and it is gruesome stuff.
Even now criticisms of The Spectator from these commentators is muted and restrained - “might be a bit far, old chaps, maybe a bit of an error?” - for the reasons discussed in my previous tweet.
Tzipi Hotovely is a right wing extremist who supports the annexation of all Palestinian land and describes the 'nabka' - the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 - as an "Arab lie".
She's the Ambassador of a state deemed by Human Rights Watch to practice Apartheid.
Just as anti-apartheid protesters were right to protest the South African Embassy - which they did far more aggressively than anything that happened last night at LSE - students are entitled to protest an extremist Israeli Ambassador who freely spoke at their university.
For those saying: "What about China!" Please do protest the Chinese Ambassador if he does a talk at your university legitimising the persecution of Uighur Muslims.
The difference is Israel is our ally - armed and backed by our government, and the UK helped cause this whole mess!
Solidarity and love with the brilliant Prof. Alison Phipps, who has been driven off Twitter because the anti-trans cult has allied with that well-known champion of women's rights, The Telegraph, to hound her.
You might think anti-trans activists who call themselves feminists might have a moment of self-reflection, and ask themselves why right-wing newspapers who for so long so passionately opposed LGBTQ rights and feminism are their most committed champions.
If you want to make the case for Kathleen Stock, fine, make an honest case.
If you ignore students' actual objections - not least that she signed a Declaration which supports abolishing almost all trans legal rights - that isn't journalism, it's propaganda and lies by omission.
Imagine if a university academic signed a declaration calling for the abolition of almost all legal rights for gay people, and that angered their students.
Would media outlets portray the academic as a mere victim, or would they at least try to understand the anger of students?
What this comes down to, as always, is trans people are not regarded as a legitimate minority according to Britain's media outlets, and therefore the real victims in all of this can never be trans people, but only the privileged people opposed to their fundamental rights.