Tory Watch

[Mistadobalina]

This War on Drugs nonsense - is this something the Conservatives have identified as being of appeal to some key voter group or something? It seems to go against the tide of change sweeping though most of the world right now, and is against most expert opinion.

There's a voter perception that only the most serious crimes are now dealt with by police and Johnson is trying to distance himself from his party's record of massive spending cuts on policing. He's creating a rod for his own back though, the stories about people doing gear at Westminster was obviously leaked to undermine the announcement. This is going to set off journalists to catch out hypocritical MPs and ministers who are fond of a line themselves, you get the sense that'll hurt the Tories more.

The announcements are also gimmicky as f*ck. Messaging all the customers of a dealer who's phone you've nabbed to tell them drugs are illegal is straight out of the thick of it. Prohibition has never worked, Brits love drugs. It's not going to change anything.

[Dunners]

Yet he still doesn't seem to give a XXXX about British nationals such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family.

While I doubt any of them really care about what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is going through, I think it's fair to file this case in the "Far from as straightforward as some people like to make out" category.

Firstly, it's adopting a lazy position of implying good faith in the Iranian regime, and bad faith in our own. If you had to choose between governments, for all our many, many faults, you'd be brave to bet on the Iranians.

Secondly, it assumes that she's entirely innocent. I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people.

Thirdly, yes, the UK Government took receipt of cash from the pre-revolutionary Iranian regime for goods and services we didn't deliver. But that was pre-revolution. Paying that money back to the current Iranian regime means squaring that action with international sanctions (although, to be fair, the USA have previously refunded money to the Iranians) on a hostile state that wishes to pursue nuclear armament, and has one of the worst human rights records on the planet.

Fourthly, expecting the UK Government to hand that money over assumes that the Iranians will then just hand Nazanin back to us. The Iranians have never publicly stated that her release is conditional of repayment of this money. Just imagine the criticism our Government would receive if they handed over money to Iran who then just blew a raspberry at us and walked away.

Fifthly, if the Iranians will hand her over on receipt of this money, then this is straightforward hostage taking. It's state-sanctioned terrorism against a British (duel) citizen. For the life of me, while the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism, I cannot understand why it's our government being painted as the pantomime villains in this when what the Iranians have done is deserving of much worse.

Almost all the vitriol being sprayed about would lead anyone to believe that everything is our fault. As she has duel citizenship, why is it the sole responsibility of the UK Government to give a XXX about her, and not the Iranians?

I feel for her family, but this is clearly not a straightforward issue.

Has Johnson promised you a safe seat. You missed out the bit where his intervention and comments on this matter led to the Iranians doubling down.

Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation and a welcome tool in any WUMs armoury.

Nope, but I'm still holding out for a Christmas party invite. Any true Champagne Socialist would do the same.

Sure, the Iranians were only too glad to capitalise on Johnson's gaff when he was Foreign Secretary, but I remain sceptical that had he not said what he did the outcome would be any different. And, I didn't miss this bit out. You must have missed the bit where I said "the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism".

I disagree that Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation. Sure, conspiracists may speculate and such a statement may also be used in a bog-standard WUMs armoury. But a) I'm not a bog-standard WUM, and b) it's not an incorrect statement either.

Anyway, the main point I'm trying to get across, is that this is not a straightforward issue. Surely we can all agree on at least that.

[Dunners]

This War on Drugs nonsense - is this something the Conservatives have identified as being of appeal to some key voter group or something? It seems to go against the tide of change sweeping though most of the world right now, and is against most expert opinion.

There's a voter perception that only the most serious crimes are now dealt with by police and Johnson is trying to distance himself from his party's record of massive spending cuts on policing. He's creating a rod for his own back though, the stories about people doing gear at Westminster was obviously leaked to undermine the announcement. This is going to set off journalists to catch out hypocritical MPs and ministers who are fond of a line themselves, you get the sense that'll hurt the Tories more.

The announcements are also gimmicky as f*ck. Messaging all the customers of a dealer who's phone you've nabbed to tell them drugs are illegal is straight out of the thick of it. Prohibition has never worked, Brits love drugs. It's not going to change anything.

That sounds about right. I had been hoping that we'd shift into a more realistic and sensible policy, but I really should have known better.

[Currywurst and Chips]

While I doubt any of them really care about what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is going through, I think it's fair to file this case in the "Far from as straightforward as some people like to make out" category.

Firstly, it's adopting a lazy position of implying good faith in the Iranian regime, and bad faith in our own. If you had to choose between governments, for all our many, many faults, you'd be brave to bet on the Iranians.

Secondly, it assumes that she's entirely innocent. I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people.

Thirdly, yes, the UK Government took receipt of cash from the pre-revolutionary Iranian regime for goods and services we didn't deliver. But that was pre-revolution. Paying that money back to the current Iranian regime means squaring that action with international sanctions (although, to be fair, the USA have previously refunded money to the Iranians) on a hostile state that wishes to pursue nuclear armament, and has one of the worst human rights records on the planet.

Fourthly, expecting the UK Government to hand that money over assumes that the Iranians will then just hand Nazanin back to us. The Iranians have never publicly stated that her release is conditional of repayment of this money. Just imagine the criticism our Government would receive if they handed over money to Iran who then just blew a raspberry at us and walked away.

Fifthly, if the Iranians will hand her over on receipt of this money, then this is straightforward hostage taking. It's state-sanctioned terrorism against a British (duel) citizen. For the life of me, while the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism, I cannot understand why it's our government being painted as the pantomime villains in this when what the Iranians have done is deserving of much worse.

Almost all the vitriol being sprayed about would lead anyone to believe that everything is our fault. As she has duel citizenship, why is it the sole responsibility of the UK Government to give a XXX about her, and not the Iranians?

I feel for her family, but this is clearly not a straightforward issue.

Has Johnson promised you a safe seat. You missed out the bit where his intervention and comments on this matter led to the Iranians doubling down.

Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation and a welcome tool in any WUMs armoury.

Nope, but I'm still holding out for a Christmas party invite. Any true Champagne Socialist would do the same.

Sure, the Iranians were only too glad to capitalise on Johnson's gaff when he was Foreign Secretary, but I remain sceptical that had he not said what he did the outcome would be any different. And, I didn't miss this bit out. You must have missed the bit where I said "the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism".

I disagree that Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation. Sure, conspiracists may speculate and such a statement may also be used in a bog-standard WUMs armoury. But a) I'm not a bog-standard WUM, and b) it's not an incorrect statement either.

Anyway, the main point I'm trying to get across, is that this is not a straightforward issue. Surely we can all agree on at least that.

Trying to make a nuanced point about one of the left's favourite theocracies

Good luck

[Max B Gold]

While I doubt any of them really care about what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is going through, I think it's fair to file this case in the "Far from as straightforward as some people like to make out" category.

Firstly, it's adopting a lazy position of implying good faith in the Iranian regime, and bad faith in our own. If you had to choose between governments, for all our many, many faults, you'd be brave to bet on the Iranians.

Secondly, it assumes that she's entirely innocent. I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people.

Thirdly, yes, the UK Government took receipt of cash from the pre-revolutionary Iranian regime for goods and services we didn't deliver. But that was pre-revolution. Paying that money back to the current Iranian regime means squaring that action with international sanctions (although, to be fair, the USA have previously refunded money to the Iranians) on a hostile state that wishes to pursue nuclear armament, and has one of the worst human rights records on the planet.

Fourthly, expecting the UK Government to hand that money over assumes that the Iranians will then just hand Nazanin back to us. The Iranians have never publicly stated that her release is conditional of repayment of this money. Just imagine the criticism our Government would receive if they handed over money to Iran who then just blew a raspberry at us and walked away.

Fifthly, if the Iranians will hand her over on receipt of this money, then this is straightforward hostage taking. It's state-sanctioned terrorism against a British (duel) citizen. For the life of me, while the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism, I cannot understand why it's our government being painted as the pantomime villains in this when what the Iranians have done is deserving of much worse.

Almost all the vitriol being sprayed about would lead anyone to believe that everything is our fault. As she has duel citizenship, why is it the sole responsibility of the UK Government to give a XXX about her, and not the Iranians?

I feel for her family, but this is clearly not a straightforward issue.

Has Johnson promised you a safe seat. You missed out the bit where his intervention and comments on this matter led to the Iranians doubling down.

Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation and a welcome tool in any WUMs armoury.

Nope, but I'm still holding out for a Christmas party invite. Any true Champagne Socialist would do the same.

Sure, the Iranians were only too glad to capitalise on Johnson's gaff when he was Foreign Secretary, but I remain sceptical that had he not said what he did the outcome would be any different. And, I didn't miss this bit out. You must have missed the bit where I said "the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism".

I disagree that Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation. Sure, conspiracists may speculate and such a statement may also be used in a bog-standard WUMs armoury. But a) I'm not a bog-standard WUM, and b) it's not an incorrect statement either.

Anyway, the main point I'm trying to get across, is that this is not a straightforward issue. Surely we can all agree on at least that.

Not an incorrect statement? Prove it.

[Max B Gold]

Has Johnson promised you a safe seat. You missed out the bit where his intervention and comments on this matter led to the Iranians doubling down.

Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation and a welcome tool in any WUMs armoury.

Nope, but I'm still holding out for a Christmas party invite. Any true Champagne Socialist would do the same.

Sure, the Iranians were only too glad to capitalise on Johnson's gaff when he was Foreign Secretary, but I remain sceptical that had he not said what he did the outcome would be any different. And, I didn't miss this bit out. You must have missed the bit where I said "the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism".

I disagree that Point 2 is pure conspiracist speculation. Sure, conspiracists may speculate and such a statement may also be used in a bog-standard WUMs armoury. But a) I'm not a bog-standard WUM, and b) it's not an incorrect statement either.

Anyway, the main point I'm trying to get across, is that this is not a straightforward issue. Surely we can all agree on at least that.

Trying to make a nuanced point about one of the left's favourite theocracies

Good luck

Name names.

[Dunners]

Not an incorrect statement? Prove it.

What, this? "I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people."

[Max B Gold]

Not an incorrect statement? Prove it.

What, this? "I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people."

You need to show that only a select number of people know for the statement to be correct.

[Dunners]

Not an incorrect statement? Prove it.

What, this? "I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people."

You need to show that only a select number of people know for the statement to be correct.

Okay. I'll use it as a conversational icebreaker at the next No.10 soirée and report back.

[StillSpike]

What, this? "I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people."

You need to show that only a select number of people know for the statement to be correct.

Okay. I'll use it as a conversational icebreaker at the next No.10 soirée and report back.

You could ask folk in the queue for the toilets.

[tuffers#1]

Yet he still doesn't seem to give a XXXX about British nationals such as Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family.

While I doubt any of them really care about what Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is going through, I think it's fair to file this case in the "Far from as straightforward as some people like to make out" category.

Firstly, it's adopting a lazy position of implying good faith in the Iranian regime, and bad faith in our own. If you had to choose between governments, for all our many, many faults, you'd be brave to bet on the Iranians.

Secondly, it assumes that she's entirely innocent. I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people.

Thirdly, yes, the UK Government took receipt of cash from the pre-revolutionary Iranian regime for goods and services we didn't deliver. But that was pre-revolution. Paying that money back to the current Iranian regime means squaring that action with international sanctions (although, to be fair, the USA have previously refunded money to the Iranians) on a hostile state that wishes to pursue nuclear armament, and has one of the worst human rights records on the planet.

Fourthly, expecting the UK Government to hand that money over assumes that the Iranians will then just hand Nazanin back to us. The Iranians have never publicly stated that her release is conditional of repayment of this money. Just imagine the criticism our Government would receive if they handed over money to Iran who then just blew a raspberry at us and walked away.

Fifthly, if the Iranians will hand her over on receipt of this money, then this is straightforward hostage taking. It's state-sanctioned terrorism against a British (duel) citizen. For the life of me, while the likes of Raab and Johnson are deserving of criticism, I cannot understand why it's our government being painted as the pantomime villains in this when what the Iranians have done is deserving of much worse.

Almost all the vitriol being sprayed about would lead anyone to believe that everything is our fault. As she has duel citizenship, why is it the sole responsibility of the UK Government to give a XXX about her, and not the Iranians?

I feel for her family, but this is clearly not a straightforward issue.

Which Revolution ?

[Max B Gold]

What, this? "I have no idea if she is or isn't, but then neither does anyone else except a very select number of people."

You need to show that only a select number of people know for the statement to be correct.

Okay. I'll use it as a conversational icebreaker at the next No.10 soirée and report back.

Good. When you are there can you please rescue the cat. Poor thing must be going out of his tiny mind surrounded by drug addled posh lunatics.

[Dunners]

It's not so much the deed, but the cover up...

[Currywurst and Chips]

[Currywurst and Chips]

Not one to do the grandstanding how dare they moral shtick

However, I did lose a family member at this time who died alone so hopefully this latest revelation of dickheaderry gets some cut through finally

[Dunners]

This does seem to be gaining traction, finally. But I can see Startton getting thrown under the bus.

[StillSpike]

Ooft. I wonder what other footage is waiting to see the light of day.

[StillSpike]

At least Rees-Mogg thinks it's funny (footage from this year, to be clear, but the jokes seem to be about parties)

[Stowaway]

I can’t take Dunners seriously until he stops saying “bog-standard”, ffs.

[Dunners]

When you're openly mocked on mainstream light-entertainment with a clear insinuation of lying, and a "evening Prime Minister... for now!", then you're definitely dealing with a crisis.

[Dunners]

BBC Breakfast news absolutely not holding back.

Silence from Government is deafening, and making things worse.

Clearly some very heated discussions being held behind closed doors right now.

[Dunners]

Oof

[Mistadobalina]

I really, really don't understand how they haven't learnt their lesson with this stuff. They keep dragging out scandals for weeks by makings up porkies that are easily disprovable.

It's been alleged that the leader of this country personally intervened to get some dogs flown out of Kabul at the risk of human life and expense of other evacuees we left behind, and that's not even the top story today.

[Ronnie Hotdogs]

Are we supposed to believe that not one journo knew about this until now?

[StillSpike]

Pretty clear that Kuenssberg was there - plus it looks like hacks from the Sun and Times too.

I suppose that some might have been invited but declined for whatever reason - wonder why they've kept quiet since - presumably loyalty/not wanting to lose access.