UKH

Yesterday the Tories put out two lies, one on social media about the boy in hospital not really having to lie on the floor and the other about a protester punching a Tory minister.

The first lie seems to be premeditated. It was planted in just the right places in Facebook and spread by a number of bots.

The second lie was told to Robert Preston and Laura Kuensberg who Tweeted it without checking it's accuracy.

Also in the last week the Tories have made threats to the existence of both Channel 4 and the BBC when they pushed back over their contemptuous treatment by the Tory party.

Politics is a contact sport. People don't play fair. I do worry though that we seem to be close to electing a government who use lies as a way of communicating with the electorate and intimidation of the media when they won't toe their line. 

In the course of just three campaigns by systematically attacking the very concept of objective reality these tories (largely though not exclusively) have fundamentally undermined our democracy. These are the misinformation techniques of modern warfare utterly shamelessly applied to political campaigning, seemingly without negative electoral consequences.

Really hard to see how we rebuild from here.

Edit: On a slightly lighter note, I'm being absolutely bombarded, probably 1/2 to 2/3 of all the paid content on my facebook feeds with tory and brexit campaign material. If this is what well funded and aggressively micro-targeted campaigning looks like someone is laughing all the way to the bank if they've convinced the campaigns I'm a worthwhile target!

jk

Grubby doesn't do it justice.

I listened to more or lesson R4 this morning and it was fascinating/horrifying listen to an academics dismay, who was trying to remain neutral, over Sajid Javid's who was then backed up by the Tory party spokesman utterly barefaced lies about homelessness statistics. I think we are all doomed.

This wasnt a mistake, or some dodgy fiddling with the numbers (as discussed on the previous segment of being £6k better off under labour) this was straight up lying. Which apparently is fine for the home secretary to do!

Well the latest seems to be that the mother is hacked of with the Labour Party using the image.So expect a lot more on this.

For what its worth I think both sides have lost the plot on polotics as a contact sport.

You know I thought politics and politicians were suppose to be about listening understandingly , understanding compassionately and working together for the common good for all society .  

Unfortunately I'm an idealist with regards human behaviour and it's just about kicking each other in the political nuts until one falls over crippled.

I would like to think the coming environmental disaster might make us all grow up and behave ourselves and gain some morality and logic for the long game of human development .

TWS

Something that has been highlighted by recent politics both here and in the US is how much our nice, orderly society relies upon everyone voluntarily agreeing to play by the rules.

Take Trump. Pick your grievance - he's clearly terrible in so many ways. Any normal politician would have been sunk by the accusations against him but simply because he and enough of the people around him refuse to play by the rules of the game he's virtually immortal.

The tactics used by the Brexit campaign, by the Conservatives in this election campaign and indeed with the Conservatives during the last parliament are similarly things that wouldn't have worked previously. If someone had tried it 15 years ago everyone would have solemnly agreed That's Not Allowed and the perpetrator would have made some fluffy excuse and resigned. But now, someone's worked out that all you have to do is NOT resign, and it turns out that there's basically no sanction above that.

There is the courts, but they implement the law created by parliament, which can't bind itself, so if they start being inconvenient it'll only take one strong majority government and we'll see that restraint removed too. And as we've seen they work too slowly; by the time they agree someone has broken the rules it's too late because the misbehaviour has already worked and shifted the debate.

If you think about it, there are really no stops between here and civil disturbance unless the government voluntarily agrees to start playing by the rules again. Sounds very hyperbolic, but seriously what's going to stop them other than popular uprising?

Mr Javid's shameful lies on homelessness have cost the Conservatives one vote. My mother, who was more opposed to Scottish independence than Brexit, has gone over to anti-Tory tactical voting (SNP) so incensed was she that the UK Government feels able to deliberately peddle falsehoods to voters.

I can understand that. Remember the saga of Jennifer's ear?

What concerns me is that the modus operandi of our current and possibly future PM is to tell lies to get his way or to get out of awkward situations and his lead has been followed by the rest of his party. He doesn't even seem to care that much if people believe him or not. He understands that elections are decided by the 15% of the electorate who are least interested and least informed and if they are stupid enough to believe him then that's fine, phuq the rest of you.

We are seeing he politics of Trump being imported into Britain.

there's more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/10/break-embargo-expose-...

The Tories are getting so extreme in their tactics it suggests they are playing for higher than normal stakes.   They aren't just worried about losing an election they are worried about what will happen if they don't have the power of their office to keep the media in line and the lid on investigations into Russian collusion and Boris giving money to Jennifer Arcuri.  It is getting to be like Trump.

If you went on to say: "... and the Remain campaign and the Labour Party etc ..." then you'd have a fair point.   But the fault is not all on one side. 

LGI have apologised by saying that are sorry that there only chairs available in the area the child was being cared for. I guess the floor seemed a better option. As a pediatric nurse I'd be more than  worried. The child was on IV fluids with a cannula access. Massive infection risk. 

I'm not revisiting this tedious argument again. Being punched in the nose is not the same thing as a shotgun blast to the face, and Corbyn sitting on the floor of a train for PR points (while dumb) is not the same thing as the onslaught of manipulation coming in the other direction.

£350m busses, Turkey joining EU, Farage gurning infront of his tide of migrants poster, proroguing parliament to try and force hard brexit, withdrawing your own bill and claiming parliament sank it. Those come to mind as fast as I can type them out.

I thought about this before posting and couldn't think of any direct lies or misinformation spread by any of the other parties. Spin yes, direct attempts to deliberately mislead, no. My memory could of course be selective and I deplore lies and fake news from any part of the political spectrum so if I have forgotten something maybe you could remind me.

I think they're all as bad, and can think of a long list of just-as-bad from Labour, Remainers, etc.      

Taking that hospital event  as one example. Labour's comment was: "The Tories are so desperate to distract from a four-year-old boy sleeping on a hospital floor because of their cuts to the NHS that ..."

However, there haven't been "cuts to the NHS", so that statement is an attempt to mislead.  What is true is that the Tories have not increased the spending on the NHS as much as Labour likely would have (and arguably not as much as it has needed), but that's not the same thing.  

That hospital trust had a substantial 'savings' program.  To all intents and purposes the hospital had cuts which is why it was skint and couldn't deal with demand.

Yes, and I also recall an incident where Tony Blair was rather reluctant to discuss an individual case in front of the cameras, during an election hospital visit.

It's a bit weird expecting to hold politicians responsible for individual cases, and one can understand their reluctance -- for starters, the politician doesn't know anything about the particulars of the case, whereas the questioners may well do.  

See p.48 of the 2019 Tory Manifesto.

In fairness to Peston he later apologied and admitted his error

Journalist like it because everything is in their favour. However, the fact couldn't just say, "Of course I've seen the photo*, it's awful that this has happened, it obvious that it is a failure of the system and that needs sorting. That is why I pledge to blah blah blah" but instead looked really shifty, claimed he hadn't seen the photo, refused to look at it then nicked the journalists phone is totally his own fault. It could have just been a difficult interview, instead it was a PR disaster (especially with the angry mob of 3? people abusing and assaulting poor Matt Hancocks team.

*It was the front page of the Mirror, there is NO chance he would wouldn't have been briefed about it.

The Brexit hedge-fund nonsense is one such example. I have seen no attempt to correct it from those who spread the story (The usually excellent Carole Cadwalladr for example) once it had been debunked by independent fact checkers.

So did Laura Kuenssberg but it's pretty depressing when the senior journalists of our main news networks just tweet out the Tory Party line verbatim. Is that journalism?

The reasons that hospitals struggle to deal with demand is increasing demand on their services owing an ageing population, a larger fraction of the population have long-term health needs (diabetes, dementia, etc), improvements in medical care that mean they can do more, et cetera. 

Thus hospitals always need more money -- and always will need more money -- it is the job of doctors to do their best for their patients by spending all the resources they have and then asking for more. 

Further, any large organisation should indeed by continually looking for ways to save money, and ways to do things more efficiently, thus freeing up money for elsewhere.    Ongoing looking for savings will also always be part of the NHS, and quite rightly. 

Given all that, the "crime" of the Tories is not to have "cut" the NHS, it is not to have increased the funding as much as others advocate they should have done. 

He did, as did Kuenssberg. However an apology should usually come with some sort of effort to not repeat the same mistake, otherwise it's worthless. Will we see an end to the mindless repeating of "anonymous sources" without fact checking? I wouldn't hold my breath.

And neither Party is proposing to meet what the NHS says it needs !!!( as per Stevens comments)

That is what really what makes me laugh about the gullibility of voters on all sides.  

Perhaps we could have a StoryParty marching song written about poor Horst who was so viciously punched?

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6x56g1

I do not endorse this song - it is a warning from history - anyone who does not know it can look up the lyrics of lie politics

I agree to a point but that's not what I'm concerned about or talking about. I'm talking about direct lies. 

Yesterday the Tory party directly lied twice to try and kill the NHS story. 

What is shocking is that these very experienced reporters did what even the most junior report on a free local newspaper knows they shouldn't do. They put out a story without checking its accuracy.

Is it the government's fault for not funding or the taxpayers fault for not paying enough in tax for the Government to spend on the nhs? 

you didn't hear the broadcast of the nasties on the WATO R4 focus group yesterday?

We are doomed if those folk are representative of the level of ignorance, intelligence and intent of the electorate.  Remoaner again went unchallenged

she is earning a good salary for perpetrating rubbish and sloppy harmful journalism

Katya Adler speaks far more sense and with much better analysis

The problem is that the photo and its context are not "obvious" to the politician, and if the politician gets it wrong and uses "failure of the system" language then it could easily result in a headline of "X has a go at hard-working NHS staff".

I'm surprised any incumbent PM goes within a mile of a hospital during an election - - as in the Blair incident, a Labour PM would be as vulnerable. 

Politicians do lie and spin and misrepresent all the time -- but the media has long stopped playing fair also. 

But the story was online the night before, it was obviously going to come up and he had plenty of time to get briefed on it. He could also have just shown some human emotion.

It's a shame they they consistently under fund them to the extent they are embarrassed to visit them. 

I think the bare faced lying by politicians is getting worse and the media does not hold them to account enough personally.

This is nothing new, Nick Davies covered this in Flat Earth News 10 years ago. Much of it has to do with declining sales of the traditional print media from local rags up to national broadsheets where journalists simply don't have the time, adequate training or resources to cover stories like they used to. Old school investigative journalism where a team of reporters would spend months building a bomb proof story are now more invested in 'rolling news' that has resulted in 'being first' as more important as 'being right'. Most news content these days is pulled from the wires, AP, Reuters etc but even those organisations have been gutted so you often get just one journalist covering a huge geographic area and they simply cant go into the forensic detail they used to and so corporate or political press releases are pretty much cut and paste jobs.

I think it's what happens to journalism in the twitter age, where everything has to be compressed to a few hundred characters and you have to publish immediately or lose your audience to someone who does. It's a very different scenario to a print media style 24 hour news cycle where there's time for scrutiny.

The NHS will always be "underfunded" compared to some unattainable, ideal world.   The NHS will always be able to do more, if it had more money.  There will always be sick kids, some of whom are getting less-than-ideal treatment, and there will always be fraught parents. 

Treating a PM, of any party, as personally responsible for individual cases is not sensible politics.

I think it is more complex.  Part of it is PFI contracts that NHS trusts have been saddled with at a time when government could borrow really cheaply.   Part of it is the Tories continually playing political games around privatisation and re-organisation instead of letting it run efficiently.  Part of it is the Tories who have been put in charge of NHS have been totally incompetent.

Scottish NHS has not had the same level of privatisation and is working much better.

Would this do? Philippa Whitford, SNP health spokesperson in last parliament, claimed before Scottish Independence Referendum in 2014 that a large hospital in Gateshead had stopped doing operations for gullet cancer due to budget cuts. The hospital had never done gullet cancer operations. Of course that was ok because she said she had been told this by a surgeon at the hospital but admitted she hadn't checked up on this.

I won't go into the details of an SNP MP briefing the BBC that a nurse on Question Time who had made comments against the SNP Scottish Government was married to a Tory councillor. The MP later tweeted that she had been wrong and apologised. The damage had already been done. I personally know some of the treatment this lady received as a result of this "mistake." This includes all sort of lies spread about her on Twitter. [I admit to being biased here. My daughter is friendly with the lady's daughter. While staying with her when my wife and I were on holiday my daughter contracted tonsillitis and this lady nursed her in an exemplary fashion. I couldn't be more grateful to her or have more contempt for the MP in question.]

I await Tom in Edinburgh and all the usual suspects to come after me with the pitch forks and flaming torches.

To be fair almost everyone in the Question Time audience is either married to a Tory councillor or is one themselves.

Isn't it the case that the largest increase in PFI and contracting out to private companies occurred under Blair/Brown? 

In fairness if you want people's views in a focus group allowing them to speak freely, however much you might disagree, is pretty much essential. I heard it, really grim listening for the most part.

I think we need to brace for a huge Johnson majority secured with a very significant minority of popular support and all the associated social problems that is going to bring in the coming decade.

jk

Working better..  really?

Perhaps it's just better funded because the Barnet formula gives holyrood more money per capita than any shire in England? 

Everybody has a right to their own political opinions but I think that anybody that votes for the Conservative Party in this election is complicit in a concerted attack on democracy and democratic institutions in all of the UK nations. This election is demonstrating just how vulnerable "liberal" democracies are when faced with a group of individuals that have thrown away the "rule book" and shamelessly use lies, bullying and media manipulation to get their hands on power. 

Yes and no. Yes, in absolute terms, but given that Labour were in government for 13 of the first 18 years of PFI's, thats hardly surprising. On a "per annum" basis, the Conservatives have been much more active in signing PFI's for  - you should really try googling things before putting forward such hypotheses, you would not appear so politically biased, and a fact check can prove educational as well as informative.

PFI's first appeared in 1992/3, and by 1997 £43.9bn had been signed (capital value). Between 1997 and 2010, an additional £49.1bn had been signed. It should be noted however that from 2008 to 2010, the number was much lower, as much of the private sources of finance had dried up as a result of the banking crisis.

PFI contracts "restarted" in 2010, but have been at a much lower level (just under £7bn by 2014, when PF2 came in.

So in total, £51bn in 9 years of conservative government, £49bn in 13 years of Labour. Score draw, really. And no, imho they have never been a good idea.

Absolutely untrue!

Exactly right. We’re in a post-shame era. 

Interesting. Do you have any stats on the NHS contracting out services to private companies?

Obviuously they should have checked, but repeating someone else's lie is not the same as making up the lie in the first place.

There's a number of things out there, a quick flick through some and its obvious they have been compiled with a political aim in mind rather than an "informing" aim. I would try this one; it seems less obviouly biased, but its not really too clear, except that the level of expenditure with private providers (i.e with shareholders and company registration numbers) is about 25% of total NHS spend. 

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/big-election-questions-n...

If you are just looking at PFI contracts, the reason i think they are not a good idea is in the excessive costs; the average borrowing rate was 8% whilst the rate for gilts (essentially the governments borrowing cost for similar capital projects was 4%. And the equity rate of return for equity holders has been in the 15 to 30% range, which borders on taking the piss, especially as there is a far lower risk than normal intrinsic in such projects.

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Comment/lessons-learnt-from-pfi-in-t...

There are some frighteningly large numbers in there, especially for those projects in the early years of PFI. And 13 in total had profit levels in excess of 20% of the NHS payments made....so for every £10 we paid as taxpayers, more than £2 is creamed off as profit. And if you are Virgin, it is all tax free as its registered in the BVI.........nice work if you can get it. 

So many pfis were inherited and not all restarted by the Tories? Of course it's possible the Tories may have started even more pfis if they'd been in power in the era when boom and bust was ended. 

Pfis versus billions in new borrowing or debt for the next generation..  same difference? Either way it's deferred payment. 

They were all "inherited" by the Tories in 2010, just as they were all "inherited" by labour in 1997. Both parties enthusiastically embraced them, so it is a complete unknown as to whether the tories would have started more or less had they been in power from 1997 to 2010 instead of labour. None were restarted by anybody; once they were started, thats it. Although a couple have been bought out (Hexham hospital, due to frightnening costs - they borrowed 118m from the local authority to buy out a contract that cost 56m originally but would have cost 256m over its lifetime). and a couple were brought back into public ownership fully during labour time.

And yes to the deferred payment; the only difference being the huuuuge increase in financing costs over just borrowing on the national debt to pay for the projects. Anything from bridges to Aircraft carriers. One of the reasons they became less popular is because the NAO and PAC (public accounts committee) heavily criticised this version of off balance sheet funding, very similarly to the Student Loans issue, which would arguably break accounting rules!

Oh I agree.  The cynical attempt to mislead came from two "senior figures in the Conservative party".

There are two possibilities regarding the reporters.

The first is an innocent mistake where two of the most experienced reporters in Britain didn't check the accuracy of a story before repeating it on Twitter.

The second is that  they didn't care about the accuracy as they knew the story would damage Labour and divert attention away from BJ stealing a reporter's phone whether it turned out to be true or not. This implies they both want a Tory victory of course.

I'm always sceptical of conspiracy theories but after following Laura Kuensberg on Twitter for a few weeks now it does seem to me that she Tweets a lot more stories that are damaging to Labour than ones that are damaging to the Tories. I really don't know.

Absolutely true.  NHS in Scotland is working better than at any time I can remember.  So much so that the unionist media have to dredge up the most tenuous crap from years ago for their regular SNP bad stories.   In England the media are spoiled for choice.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50726500?fbclid=IwAR0YTkDuGSKoZdU2Obs...

"for the Conservatives, it said that 88% (5,952) of the party's most widely promoted ads either featured claims which had been flagged by independent fact-checking organisations..."

88% FFS!

jk

Leaflet from my local Tory came through the door today.
I'm going to post it through the local Con club door with a note asking them to not post anymore of their lying shite (40 new hospitals being one) through my letterbox.

Oh Laura definitely has it in for JC. She always has. But you have to ask yourself why someone as well informed as her, and a figurehead for journalistic insight at the impartial national broadcaster, should hold him in such low regard.

Does it not trouble you that, for all your invective against the Tories, you might be backing a bad ‘un? If I were a concerned, moderate left of centre voter I’d probably listen to Jon Ashworth and question whether prolonging Corbyn’s hold over the party was in my, the party’s or the country’s interests.

Admittedly, the prospect of a Johnson win might reasonably motivate you. It’s got me voting for a third party, after all. But will you regret it if Corbyn loses and will not budge until Momentum’s hold on the party is absolute?

Which could all be averted if the Left stood up to its lunatic factions and made itself more attractive to the middle ground.

Instead you put Jeremy in charge, have Momentum calling the shots, and embrace all levels of absurdity under the banner of "social justice" (how nasty do you have to be to not want that?).  End result? Labour turns what should be a guaranteed win into, yet another, likely electoral failure.

Only 88%, I'm getting almost daily correspondence from Boris Johnson, the only truth seems to be his name at the top. He is called Boris, isn't he?

Says the fella who thought Turning Point UK where a vehicle for moderate conservative thinking amongst young people.

The fact that "Laura definitely has it in for JC" means she is unfit for the position, regardless of any justification that she may feel, or justification that you may feel on her behalf.

I'm sorry but you're fantasising.

I actually took the trouble to check the numbers myself a while ago, downloading spreadsheets from the ONS on the performance of NHS England and comparing there performance figures to those published by the Scottish governemnt which are nowhere near as comprehensive. In fact there has been a decline in standards in the NHS England since 2010 all it meant was that they reached parity with NHS Scotland.

You might also want to consider the cover up concerning the deaths of children in Scotland's new flagship hospital in Glasgow and the poisoning of scores more. Incompetentence, arse covering and nepotism, absolutely shocking. In Edinburgh you must be aware of the delay in opening the Sick kids hospital, a delay of over a year which is costing us over £1 million per month! 

..and when Nicola sneers at PFI you might want to remember that the Scottish government still use it but have just changed its name: https://www.jubileescotland.org.uk/the-snp-abolished-pfi-or-did-they/

..and just listen carefully to what they have to say about the NHS not being for sale as well. No doubt they'll pick their words carefully as usual: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1214498/general-election-news-nicol...

I happen to have the luxury of voting in a safe Labour constituency so not particularly troubled by choosing between the Lib dems and Labour. If I wasn't I'd be voting "not Tory" whatever that meant. 

Is Laura Jewish? I ask because that would explain her hatred of JC. Had a look on Wikipedia but couldn't see anything one way or the other. certainly comes from a very well connected and no doubt Tory family.

Think they've had build quality problems with pfi schools in Scotland in the past few years. 

It's not too late. Labour could still landslide. Kick out jc, put in keir starma, 48hrs of media coverage. Job done. Momentum would still vote for them as there isn't any other party, a few million voters would return if toxic jc departs. 

My mother was in that the new QE hospital in Glasgow for months and I visited it almost every day.  It is absolutely f*cking brilliant compared with the hospitals it replaced on that side of Glasgow.

The 'deaths of children' story that was front page on the BBC for weeks is total BS.  The infections were never traced at the time.   Years later it is total speculation to blame the water supply.   Also, the fact is there are 18,000 hospital acquired infections in NHS England a year, just over 6% of patients get one.  It is not a rare occurrence.   The children were having chemotherapy and were immune compromised.   Absolute tragedy for the parents but you can't go after the politician who runs NHS Scotland for a small number of deaths in a cancer ward a significant time before she even got the job.    It was an SNP bad, shit-slinging frame up.

Yes, the SNP government built a £150 million new sick kids hospital for Edinburgh which was a good thing.   The SNP actually build hospitals unlike the Tories that bullsh*t about it.  Then they found some snags.  OK, not good but also it isn't exactly rare for £150 million buildings to have snags that take a while to fix.  It will be fixed and it will be a great hospital for decades.  After a couple of years nobody will remember it was a few months late.

They aren't allowed to borrow in the same way as the UK government.  After independence they'd have more flexibility about how things were financed.

A version of 'left' attractive to centrist voters would surely be 'centre', no? I'd much rather we had a distinctive plurality of parties and views represented proportionally in parliament but for that we need electoral reform.

Anyway, there's no averting this disaster now, it was lost weeks ago when the ballot papers were printed.

How on earth should this be a guaranteed win for Labour? Labour looks locked out of power for the foreseeable future by FPTP and Scottish nationalism. You understand how the UK electoral system works, right and the consequences of skewing of the axis about which it was designed to pivot? Nothing works as it used to anymore.

jk

Here's another BBC Scotland classic https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50727735

Week 1 in December NHS Scotland A&E 81.2% seen in 4 hours. NHS England 68.7% and the BBC headline two days before a GE is:

"Scotland's A&E target figures are worst since start of 2018"

You look at the graph and you see that every couple of years it bounces down in Dec/Jan probably due to a winter bug or bad weather.  The target is 95%, they've been running consistently at 90% until a month ago.

They could have looked at that data and had "Scottish NHS 12% better than English NHS" as the headline but they are only interested in SNP bad stories. 

Kuensberg today has her GE predictions as "Johnson to return with 1st decent majority for a generation, or about to enter frenzy of hung parly talks which could see Corbyn into power".  So 'decent' applies to a Johnson majority and 'frenzy' applies to Corbyn possibly getting into power.   

The BBC is a shameless Tory mouthpiece in this GE, just like it was a unionist mouthpiece in the 2014 indyref.

It's an article about Scotland's NHS posted on the Scotland section of the UK News, so, I would say, it is perfectly reasonably headline.

It's an example of consistent bias.  They look at data and consistently find a way of reporting it which makes Scotland look weak and the SNP look bad.  They do the exact same thing with Corbyn vs Johnson.

A lot of us repelled by Labour are former Labour voters, nominally on the left and on-board with many leftish principles.  We're just not at all comfortable with the recent decade's programme of special statuses, demonisation of opposing viewpoints, increasing paternalistic control over people's lives and dictats on allowable speech.  It wouldn't take much to bring a lot of people back on-board, from across the board.  

This is a cop-out.  Like the US elections, the Left still wants to look at every reason (particularly conspiratorial ones) other than its own partisan shift in policies, to explain why it is failing to win.

The Tories have been a disaster.  Yet Labour makes itself unattractive to all but anyone strongly left-of-centre and perhaps moderates who have to vote for them while holding their noses.  The Tories have accepted a fair number of progressive ideas that even Labour would have struggled to support prior to 1997.  Whether they were dragged there kicking and screaming or not, at least they have moderated.  Outside of economically liberal ideas, Labour on the other hand pushes in one direction in its social policy - strongly and ever more leftward, regardless of whether the ideas are good ones or not.  The attitude seems to be, "further left is automatically better".  Imagine the conservatives beign so dogmatic on social policy?  Continuing to implement policy against equal rights for minorities for example?  

That seems fair enough. Thee certainly will be more immediate frenzy if it is a hung parliament with all the negotiations which it would result in.

It doesn’t though, does it? The ‘frenzy’ refers to the hung party talks. It literally says ‘a frenzy of hung party talks’.

There’s not even any context where describing Corbyn getting in to power as a ‘frenzy’ makes sense. 

frenzy

noun

a state or period of uncontrolled excitement or wild behaviour.
 

Replace the word with ‘bustle’ or ‘bun fight’ or some other synonym.

It's an article on the Scottish NHS in the Scotland section the BBC website.  What do you expect?   Of course they are going to report Scottish figures, not English (or French or Russian for that matter).

Again, you are seeing demons everywhere. In any good-faith reading,  decent" applies to the size of the majority, not the Johnson part.

Ooh, surprise.  They report English figures being missed too

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50397856

It seems the span of time of a "generation" is getting smaller and smaller.

The Labour Majority in 1997(179),  2001(160ish) and 2005 (60ish)  seem pretty decent to me and I wouldn't say 14 years ago was a generation ago.

[quote]I can understand that. Remember the saga of Jennifer's ear?[/quote]

I thought it was the war of Jenkin's ear 

https://www.britannica.com/event/War-of-Jenkins-Ear

it's all going on in here.  Fascinating, Captain (in the words of spock)

https://cryptome.org/2019/11/arron-banks-dm.html

needs a bit of sifting though as is a big time window

That's what you think of Labour, not necessarily how others see it. I think you've spent far too long in the alt-right fringes of the internet warping your world view, you might still think of yourself as a moderate centrist but you don't much sound like one anymore. We're probably both a bit right and both a bit wrong here.

As ever, we're not in America. Of course the Democrats did win the popular vote in the US last time their ideas were put to the test but like here the electoral system distorts. Arguably their failing was campaign strategy, not policy.

There's no cop-out and I'm not claiming there is any conspiracy. Sometimes events just get ahead of the feedback we have in place to keep our political system reasonably balanced, with the loss of Scotland to the SNP and the issue of brexit cutting across the traditional left-right axis this is one of those times and it has seriously squeezed Labour's ability to turn votes into power. Could a different leader do better? Probably somewhat but we are where we are and we work with what we have.

Labour's policies are hardly radical in a Northern European context.

We don't have to imagine, we lived decades of it.

Your muddling of socially progressive, 'left' and fringe US student politics is baffling by the way. Anyway, this is what elections are for, don't like where Labour have gone on minority rights or whatever it is you have a bee in your bonnet about, don't vote for them.

jk

How on earth does a party that's been out of power for nine years manage to exert 'increasing paternalistic control over people's lives and dictats on allowable speech."? That's bizarre. As for Tory progressive ideas, that was a thing for a few years until they got elected in 2010. It didn't last long for the most part.

So what.  They are trying to influence an election in Scotland with the way they report things on the page people will see in Scotland.  Obviously they'll have stories about England as well but you aren't going to find them from the News page that comes up if you live in Scotland unless you search.  

How about this:  BBC's Laura Kuenssberg on live TV saying that the postal vote results - which are supposed to be secret until after polls close - do not look good for Labour.  The BBC have lost the plot.

https://twitter.com/Carolin31152898/status/1204748359963234304?s=20

In the happy event that Johnson doesn't win a clear majority and the likelihood that Corbyn also fails to win a majority, there will indeed be a frenzy of jostling among the parties, seeking alliances and pay-offs. I think that's quite a realistic assessment of the outcome. 

That is surely a breach of electoral law (interfering with the voting process by releasing privileged information knowing it might influence voters)  and Broadcasting standards.

How does it get away scot-free?

Knowing our democracy is now so worthless makes me feel violent towards the people who are controlling things

How about this:  BBC's Laura Kuenssberg on live TV saying that the postal vote results - which are supposed to be secret until after polls close - do not look good for Labour.  The BBC have lost the plot.

https://twitter.com/Carolin31152898/status/1204748359963234304?s=20 1

She says that the "parties have looked at the PVs , not meant to but they have and both sides are saying that they are grim for labour"

Who are the parties that she is referring to? 

We're going around in circles a bit here but this is telling; that my views are considered alt-right, or alt-right influenced.  It's fair to say I read right-of-centre material these days.  But that's in addition to my old diet of left-wing materials, not in lieu of.  My subscription to the Spectator exists alongside my subscription to the New Statesman.  I don't think that makes me biased.  Quite the opposite, and the assumption that it does is equally telling.  The harm of contact with the right reminds me a bit of a Hungarian girlfriend I once had who, when I showed her a book on Buddhism, refused to physically touch it given what her religious educators had taught her. 

From what I can see, one of the main (not only) reasons Labour is haemorrhaging support is moderate people supporting a range of policies, or even mostly left-wing policies, have seen a dramatic shift in areas of equality and freedom.  The party, and left-wing thought, is being represented by a group that shouldn't really be considered mainstream.  This might not be problem if the Left wasn't so bloody silent about these transgressions, and especially if they didn't react so horrified ("alt-right!") when that criticism was made.  Instead of lashing out or refusing to accept the claim, perhaps some introspection would be useful.

We'll have to agree to differ on that.  An apparently sane candidate, with bags of experience, losing to narcissistic reality TV show host could have many causes.  When so many of his own voters note that they don't like the guy but at least he isn't representing the interests his opponent was, then that should at least have you asking what it was she did. 

The US-UK example is useful as the UK left seems to be falling in to the same trap as the US left, failing to examine what it is in their own policies that is making them unelectable and instead blaming every other possible cause.  We're into the realm where Russian collusion and internet freedoms are more likely to be cited as causes of electoral failure than actual party policies - as if they are automatically righteous and good and beyond reproach.  The Tories at least went through some form of detoxification.  Labour is busily making itself as toxic as possible. 

I'd really like it if Boris wasn't going to get re-elected, a more left-er party was voted in, and we had a way out of the Brexit quagmire.  

Labour are failing to provide that and given they represent an ever more intrusive push in to people's lives (something that used to be the preserve of the Conservatives) I'm no more likely to vote for them than I am the Tories.  It's not as if Labour have to fear losing votes by being a little less rabidly SJW.

How is reporting A&E figures for Scotland on the Scottish pages remotely trying to influence an election?  It is reporting the news in an appropriate location.

You only have to listen to the Labour convention discussions, the message of Momentum activists, and Corbyn, McDonald and Abbot to get an idea of what the brave new world they desire under their watch. 

For all the good they propose, the quid-pro-quo is not enticing, and I'm bloody well not going to vote for them hoping they actually attempt to be more moderate!

Fortunately, it seems the population aren't so keen to let them near the levers of power. 

Is that genuine?

jk

You are right, Corbyn, Momentum and the rest are terrible in many ways.  The reason you are viewed as alt-right is because you lament this while utterly ignoring the equally or worse ways in which the Tories (and Republicans) are terrible, coupled with your rejection of science when it conflicts with your politics.

Unless they know the source it's hard to prove. It could be a rumour started to try and jostle more Labour voters to get out the door and vote tomorrow. .

You'd think the beeb would refuse to comment and pass the details to the electoral commission. 

Yup.

https://twitter.com/ElectoralCommUK/status/1204790546675437573

It's the way they report it and that they consistently have an SNP bad story on their front page.

The headline is putting a negative slant on what are pretty reasonable data.   Their target is 95% and they ran consistently at about 90% until last month when it went down to a bit over 80%.  A dip in Dec/Jan isn't unusual because people get sick in the winter.  They are doing 12% better than England.

I'm lost, am I your Hungarian girlfriend in this story?

Can we just be crystal clear here, do you mean an increase in equality and freedom or a reduction? And I presume we're discussing the last decade where Labour were not actually in power?

Are we basically pretending Labour are unelectable because the Conservatives let the gays get married? Just so we're on the same page here.

What? I mean their ideas look pretty mainstream in the Northern European context to me so is it the people you have a problem with? Which ones and why.

Make a specific criticism: person and statement and context then you might get a specific response.

You're agreeing to differ with a simple fact? Ok. What she did was win the popular vote. Nobody can win over everyone.

What passes for the left in the US won the popularity contest but they lost the game. Again, your apparent denial of this is both weird and makes further meaningful discussion of it tricky.

Hardly. Poorer strategic choices than Trump's team made cost Clinton the election. Her ideas won popular support.

What bollocks. Specifically how are Labour 'rabidly SJW'? Policies. Quotes.

Labour offer a clear route out of the brexit quagmire. Alas we've been persuaded it's better to drown.

jk

The targets have been consistently missed. The article reported that and barely mentioned the SNP (despite them being in power and responsible for years). Its a neutral, factual article. You seem to be expecting it to laud the SNP  by comparisons with elsewhere. Tbat would indeed be biased. 

I expect them to put the figures in context and point out good things as well as bad.

95% is a pretty ambitious target, if you get 90% you are doing OK.

Ah, so what you meant to say is 'they would like to exert 'increasing paternalistic control over people's lives..."? Spot the difference...

As it happens I have no time for the people you cite and their view of socialism, but more than one left-wing position is available. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater and jump ship to the right wing. (Mixed metaphor alert...)

I thought you might recognise the religion analogy, where pointing to contact with "alt-right" ideas requires a good dunking.  It seems reflected in the (lefty) concept of no-platforming; the untrustworthy masses being at risk of conversion to ungodly (or competing) doctrines by exposure to them.  

I'm a former labour voter.  I'm all for quality and freedom.  I just don't believe Labour stands for that any more. 

They're instead on the slippery slope away from "equality" towards demands for "equity" and I suspect in coming years, the very term "equality" will be viewed with the same derision that "centrist" increasingly is.  That derision is a direct quote from Owen Jones by the way.  If he doesn't speak for mainstream leftism, then who does?  Who is your moderate voice?  Ash Sarkar?

My issues with Labour might have begun with Iraq.  But its precisely in the last decade, that the social justice movement to which they are 100% wedded, has morphed into a movement that is fundamentally at odds with my concepts of equality.  Judging someone by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin, is not where social justice/Labour is at in 2019.  Quite the opposite.

By all means, try and convince me that Labour does not equal Momentum/McDonald/Abbot/etc.  If you can achieve that, then I'll grant you Labour may be a safe pair of hands.  But the evidence doesn't look in your favour.

In case you missed it, the concern is with the mainstream left.  That is why the mainstream left is in so much trouble, here and in northern Europe.  It's not, as they like to claim the result of the "rise of the right".  Its because the left has vacated its old ground.

Hillary should have cleaned up.  Instead she barely scraped a 2% difference and lost the electoral college.  It's not as if the electoral college was pulled out of the bag for that one election.  It exists for a perfectly good reason, to avoid the tyranny of the majority.  Are you claiming the presidency is illegitimate?

We've been over this in countless threads before and we're only going to get into endless semantic discussions about "SJW" being an unfair monicker, the left not really existing, and so on. 

The problem here is, you get to judge Conservatives or Lib Dems by every minute of the last nine years.  The Labour equivalent is the conference statements, the Momentum-led purges, and the kinds of spokesmen they seem comfortable with.  Are you really telling me you see no rabid-SJWism in that?

Their Brexit supporting leader, reluctant to say as much because he's dependent on duping Remain supporters to vote for him?  We probably wouldn't be where we are if he had been unequivocal in backing the Remain side of the referendum and being a proper opposition leader throughout.

Refusing to vote Labour is not jumping ship. 

When did Bush's "You're with us, or against us" become so popular on the left?

I can't see any reports about this on the BBC website or hear it on PM.  Now who are some BBC Political Editors??? Oh ...

In Fact her top Election story on the Website is about it being Labour's Turn to be on the Back Foot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

are you sure we aren't in a sim?  or living in a story?

"Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg’s salary has for the first time overtaken that of North America Editor Jon Sopel – both received increases but Kuenssberg’s was larger, putting her on £250,000-£254,999. Her Brexitcast co-star Katya Adler also got a pay bump, going from £170,000-£179,999 to £205,000-£209,999."

Aldler  is a decent commentator and gives better value for that huge salary

I didn't say it was. 

I'm not sure. I don't hold to that theory. 

What exactly are you referring to when you refer to "jumping ship to the right wing" then?  

No-platforming is, in the UK context largely about preventing incitement or intimidation. I'm not a big fan of the idea personally but nor am I losing any sleep over it.

Which of course wasn't what I asked.

Quoting single words and attributing them to individuals as if that's enlightening shorn of context is a new one on me!

I'll speak for myself in my own voice if you don't mind.

I'm still not clear how you make the incredible logical leap from increased rights delivered by the Conservatives to Labour's social policies being a threat to you and I which renders them unelectable, less still what specifically in Labour's manifesto you view as an attack on your equality and freedom. Unless of course you mean you believe others actually being able to exercise and enjoy the same rights and freedoms you do somehow diminishes your standing?

Quote me a 2019 Labour policy, ideally three because all I'm seeing is paranoid nonsense.

Why would I deny that. Its not all Labour is though.

If you say so but you'll forgive some scepticism given the strength of your argument!

Have I implied it is illegitimate? Clinton winning the popular vote hardly supports your contention that 'the left' (Clinton!) has lost the argument or lost the plot.

I just have no idea WTF you're referring to when you say Labour are 'rabidl SJW', I assumed you'd be able to support such a bold assertion with some references and fact.

All I asked was you support your assertion with evidence but I see none.

By the way you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I am a Labour activist or supporter, I'm not though I do occasionally vote Labour without misgiving or guilt.

So we've swerved neatly from Labour policy to Corbyn which isn't the same thing. Labour's brexit policy has been a painful delivery but it was, given where we are, just about worth the wait. Corbyn's leadership on the issue has been abysmal but he isn't the party. The current policy is pragmatic, democratic and it leaves open a door out of the darkness. I couldn't care two hoots which way Corbyn votes, it isn't about him.

jk

That’s simply not true.  Unless you take “incitement or intimidation” to be nothing more than a challenging viewpoint, such as “trans women are not women”, a right-wing speaker, or venturing that colonialism might not have been all bad. 

I might not lose sleep over it either.  But given the choice between two parties I’m not going to support the side of the political spectrum which can consistently be relied upon to be calling for such restrictions  It is a form of censorship and a perfect example of the SJW nonsense you keep asking for evidence of, but seem oblivious to when it is right under your nose.

It’s one thing to say you are “not a big fan of it”.  I happen to think that is a weak response, tantamount to saying “I don’t like it, but if it happens I’m willing to turn a blind eye“.

A reduction in equality and freedom is what I am concerned about.  The question is, in going about their manifesto aims, what are the practical actions Labour will undertake?  Their manifesto indicates no limitations on the lengths they would go to to achieve their lofty goals, even if (like no-platforming) that means fundamentally illiberal (and self-defeating) practical policies.

As a political moderate, occasional Labour-voter, you already seem willing to accept no-platforming.  As seemingly do most Labour supporters.  So its safe to assume, in the pursuit of social justice, Labour will likewise be unconcerned by such things.  

Can you re-assure me they wouldn’t?

Owen Jones has written plenty on what “centrism” represents, almost exclusively deriding it.  I don’t think there is much more needed context there.  The fact that “centrist” is even considered a dirty-word says a lot surely?

If you are basing your judgement on manifestos then you’re off to a bad start.  They are publicity documents, glossy brochures, designed to present a party in the best possible light while being intentionally thin on the dirty business of how they would go about achieving their great aims.  I no more base my opinions of a political party on manifesto promises than I do the pamphlet coming through the door or the party-political broadcast.  You would unlikely judge the Tories based on their manifesto promises instead of their actions would you?

But Labour’s claims to usher in a new era of social justice by replacing the Social Mobility Commission with a Social Justice Commission certainly sets the alarm bells ringing.  Social justice today is as much about “justice” as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is about “democracy” and if SJW-ism is where social-justice is then I’m going nowhere near it.  It’s become a polite way of socially acceptable way of institutionalising bias.  Likewise, if Labour is against the politics of division, claiming the Tories have “fanned the flames of racism, using difference to divide” doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence they understand the term, or are beyond employing the rhetoric they decry. 

Why would I think that?  Equality of rights and freedoms is exactly what I’ve always wanted from the Labour party.  For the most part, we achieved this – at least enshrined in law.  We’re now in to the realms of inhibiting certain rights because they are deemed harmful. 

The question is, if after having achieved equal rights under the law, and if people still remain different, what do you then do?  Who do you start to give more rights, or deny rights, to in order to manipulate outcomes in your chosen direction?  Who do you push resources towards?  Who are your chosen communities?

As above, its not manifesto document policies I have an issue with.  The Labour manifesto policy makes great reading – unicorns and a utopia achievable with just a flick of a pen in a polling booth. 

My scepticism is in how I see left-wingers enact their lofty goals at the coal face.  My experience of unions, so-called progressive policies, and the manner in which the left relates to those they deem their opponents, leads me to believe my paranoia about the Labour Party is justified.  No shortage of history to back that up. 

What is Labour if not Corbyn, Momentum, Abbot and McDonald?  You surely wouldn’t claim the Tories aren’t Boris or Mogg would you?

2% advantage and losing an election against one of the most unelectable chumps in history is not a failure?

All covered above.  Labour is the party of the left.  And the left, even the mainstream left, seems disturbingly content with (or pretends not to see) social justice nonsense.  The examples of which have been rehashed here at length over the years.  My contention is, on election night, you will be seeing that partially reflected in the outcome.

You ok with Boris's instinct to censor by grabbing a phone plus threatening Ch4 and BBC during a campaign?

Grabbing a phone to hide an image is childish but it is a funny instinct for an adult. I guess it makes him an extreme snowflake.

I do agree you are paranoid though.

First I've heard of that one, but on account of what you say, no I'm not.

The assumption that my opposition to Labour means I'm likely to be ok with the event you describe, could probably be described as a form of paranoia.

Good. Don't forget Boris is on tape discussing beating up a journalist too. His commitment to democracy is highly questionable.

You seem to be ok with ignoring Boris's failings. Why is that?

It's not because practically every post you make is criticism of The Left (as you put it), never the right. 

This is pure rhetoric. The Corbynite/neo-Stalinist/Momentum axis is only one part of the Labour Party. There are still plenty of other members, locally and in Parliament who don't come into these groups, even if the aforementioned have been doing their best to drive them out. 

You're displaying here and in many of your other statements in this thread and elsewhere tendency to broad-brush, to overgeneralise, to see the Labour Party and 'the left' as monolithic bodies. They're not, and it undermines much of what you say when you persist in this. 

I spent most of the last two decades on here hammering the right for their bullshit wars, inability to embrace reasonable progressive stances, actual >9-11 Islamophobia, the treatment of Palestinians, and the belief in Brexit.

But when it comes to post-2012 social policy, and specifically the fundamental of equal rights, plus the ability to conceive the validity of counter-nareatives, the arse has fallen out of the Left. 

The Left simply no-longer holds liberal values as sacrosanct.  As such, today's Labour Party is as dangerous and divisive as the Tories are.

Sorry if that's too alt-right for you.

You're in to the realms of "Corbyn's a terrorist sympathiser" with this list.

I'm not ignoring them. He's not getting my vote. And theres a cacophony of threads on here decrying every word the guy splutters.

How many on here, despite their muted claims of not supporting the hard left, are willing to do anything to keep them out of power?  A lot appear to be distraught at the ide of anything other than Labour in power.

Really? It's backed up with newspaper reports.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/darius-boris-and-a-blast-fro...

Excellent. He's not getting my vote either.

Do anything? You mean vote?

You’ve written several posts on here recently that I’ve identified with parts of on the subject of Labour having lost its way (amongst some that I really don’t) but what I really don’t follow is the leap from ‘Labour have gone a bit wrong’ to ‘they’re as bad as the Tories’ to ‘I’m going to actively vote FOR the Tories’ (if I’m not remembering wrong) given all the documented evidence.

I think you have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about Corbyn. I very much dislike him but for the practical reasons that he couldn’t lead a conga line and he’s lost this election through incompetence. It seems very unlikely that he’s actually an insurgent trying to undermine British society, he’s just an idiot contrarian who chums up to whoever The Establishment says he shouldn’t chum you with in order to ‘stick it to the man’. 

BBC reporter on air: “If Boris Johnson gets the victory he SO DESERVES”   

https://twitter.com/johnjh67/status/1204770212014370818

That's not acceptable. 

Too many journalists and broadcasters have -- over a decade or so -- forgotten the distinction between "news" and "comment".   Too many are now seeing themselves as advocacy organisations.

so why should we stand by any electoral process result since Kuenssberg started setting the new standard for bias?

our electoral processes are so unprotected that they are not democratic.

Re the Referendum that is dishonestly described as a democratic result I feel in the same way as witnessing a victorious cheating child receiving praise in a Morland Primary sports day race after winning by shoving another child off balance.

The Tories are that cheating dishonest child and have an instance of him as leader, whatever Labour's faults.

apart from BBC Parliament live feed I now prefer ITV coverage - Peston seems rather more objective than Kuenssberg's complete rambling gushing lack of it

And I've been a lifelong BBC fan since I had a Philips kit bedside radio in the 60s.

It's not, although I'd say that instance was probably a slip of the tongue - perhaps intending  "...he thinks he so deserves".  I struggle to believe anything so blatant would be deliberate.