MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
You're right - every time I spot someone not answering the question, I wonder why they aren't and what that suggests they are hiding.There’s an interesting feature of the government’s response to questions about the current war. From time to time, an issue arises where there is an apparent need to do one thing, but actually there is a good reason to do the opposite.
When this happens, whichever minister has been wheeled out for the day tends to explain the government’s thinking. So when asked why we haven’t banned Russia Today, the answer was that they would ban the BBC in retaliation and that would mean Russian civilians aren’t able to get accurate information about what’s happening. When asked why we haven’t expelled Russian diplomats, the answer was we are using that channel for various reasons, for example pointing out Geneva Convention violations that Russia will be required to answer for, so it is useful to keep that back channel open. And of course, why can’t we sent planes in? Because that risks all out war with a nuclear armed state.
What is interesting about this is when the the media round minister starts to bullshit. Dominic Raab was asked today why we had given VTB 30 days’ grace for people to sort their shit out before sanctions bite. His answer was back to the party gate/Covid standard response of bullshit and bluster, using up the time they can be asked anything while completely avoiding the actual question.
Needless to say, there was no follow up of the ‘you haven’t answered my question’ variety.
So what is the real reason for that 30 day period? So far as I am aware, no other country imposing sanctions on Russia has acted similarly. There is no benefit I can see to either this country or Ukraine in doing so. The only benefit is that it gives wealthy Russian individuals/Conservative party donors plenty of time to get their money out of VTB before the sanctions bite.
When you look at it that way, it’s easy to see why Raab wouldn’t answer the question. But if there is some legitimate reason, why on Earth wouldn’t he provide it?
But the wider lesson I think is this. When they have got an actual answer to the question, they provide it. When the answer is inconvenient, or politically embarrassing, that’s when they bullshit.
Which is sort of obvious, but sometimes it’s helpful to see the obvious laid out with complete clarity.
see also "were you at the party" "you'll have to wait for Sue Grey" - if he wasn't there, just say so!
It's why people quite appreciated his answer to the Ukrainian journalist when he was in Poland - there was only one answer possible, and he gave it.