Winter election III
- Thread starter Nick_G
- Start date
- Status
maxflinn
pfm Member
Here is The Jewish Chronicle's retraction:
IPSO upholds Labour activist’s accuracy complaint against JC
Following publication of four articles headlined “Ex-Militant Tendency activist accused of bullying Louise Ellman lied about date of birth to rejoin Labour”, published online on 25 February 2019; “Plot to oust MP Ellman spearheaded by a former member of the Trotskyist Militant Tendency”, published online on 25 February 2019; “’Bullied’ Louise Ellman nears exit”, published in print on 1 March 2019; “Labour MP Dame Louise Ellman ‘considering her future’ in party amid rumours of more resignations”, published online on 1 March 2019, Audrey White complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Jewish Chronicle breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complaint was upheld, and IPSO required the Jewish Chronicle to publish this adjudication.
Continued
IPSO upholds Labour activist’s accuracy complaint against JC
Following publication of four articles headlined “Ex-Militant Tendency activist accused of bullying Louise Ellman lied about date of birth to rejoin Labour”, published online on 25 February 2019; “Plot to oust MP Ellman spearheaded by a former member of the Trotskyist Militant Tendency”, published online on 25 February 2019; “’Bullied’ Louise Ellman nears exit”, published in print on 1 March 2019; “Labour MP Dame Louise Ellman ‘considering her future’ in party amid rumours of more resignations”, published online on 1 March 2019, Audrey White complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Jewish Chronicle breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complaint was upheld, and IPSO required the Jewish Chronicle to publish this adjudication.
Continued
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
This is huge. It centres around antisemitism claims against Riverside CLP by Louise Ellman and others.
I urge anyone concerned about antisemitism in Labour to read this article. It’s long, but goes to the heart of the problem that is more about incumbent MPs trying to secure their positions than anything antisemitic.
I doubt the IPSO finding against the JC will get much coverage, at least before the election, and that will be a major contributor to a Johnson majority.
In the meantime it’s worth noting that Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, was found guilty of anti Islamic defamation in 2010, for which The Spectator had to pay damages and costs
Meanwhile, here’s Stephen Pollard on Question Time defending Murdoch in the wake of the phone hacking scandal
cooky1257
pfm Member
I've read that twice and it's hard to see any contrition.
matthewr
spɹɐʍʞɔɐq spɹoɔǝɹ ɹnoʎ sʎɐld
He really is a disgusting, disgraceful excuse for a human being.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1203922486968147969
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1203922486968147969
Stunsworth
pfm Member
Schadenfreude personified. The woes of the Brexit party...
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...farage-life-support-general-election-campaign
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...farage-life-support-general-election-campaign
glancaster
In the silicon vale
Every cloud, eh?
Don’t weep for Nigel. He’s been making plans. Say goodbye to the Brexit Party...and hello to the Reform* Party:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50704706
* ironically, auto-correct is suggesting the word ‘Refugee’ here.
Colin L
High-tech low-life
Wide words from DAG that should be compulsory reading for the "great british public" (sic).
The L word, the F word, and contemporary UK politics
by David Allen Green
9th December 2019
In a few days there will be a general election in the United Kingdom.
This post is not about the possible election result - that is still uncertain and it may even come down to voting intentions which are as yet not settled.
This post is instead about two words that should have had more impact on the campaign, and current politics generally, but have not.
One word begins with L, the other with F.
*
The L word
The first word is "lie".
Some commentators in the United Kingdom aver that more should be done to confront politicians with their lies.
Peter Oborne, a journalist of immense integrity, has even sought to document and expose each lie of the current prime minister (the estimable website is here).
This is essential work: nothing in this post should be taken to mean that recording each lie is not important.
But it is not enough.
This is because many politicians now do not care about being called a liar, or even be shown to be one.
Such a reaction is a cost of political business for them - and some even relish that they "trigger" such a response as some perverse form of valediction.
The ultimate problem is not that many politicians lie.
The ultimate problem is far more worrying and far more difficult to resolve.
The ultimate problem is that many voters want to be lied to.
These voters may pretend otherwise, claiming that they want "honest politicians".
In reality, such voters just want politicians to say what the voters want to hear.
There is therefore an incentive for politicians to lie.
Until and unless many voters can be made to care about being lied to, every fine and worthy effort in exposing the lies is (at least in the short-term) futile - a public good but not enough to effect immediate change.
There are many political lies: small lies, forgettable lies, lies that take longer to expose than any mortal attention span.
But the biggest lie in the current general election - a lie that may determine the outcome - is "Get Brexit Done".
Brexit cannot be "done" without years of intense effort and attention.
Entire international relationships have to be rebuilt from scratch; entire areas of law and policy have to be reconstructed; entire social and economic patterns of behaviour have to be re-worked.
And all this in addition to the making of actual decisions about what we want those relationships, laws, policies, and social and economic patterns of behaviour to be.
And all that in turn against the intractable problem of fitting in a Brexit policy within the framework of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Brexit cannot be "got done" by mere exhortation.
It is a lie but a lie many want to believe and cannot be dissuaded from believing by mere arguments, logic or evidence.
And by the time many voters will come to care that they were lied to, Brexit will be too long gone for any voter choice to make much difference.
*
The F word
The second word - the F word - I will not type.
It is a word which has lost its traction when it needed to to still have traction.
The word describes the 1920s and 1930s manifestation of populist nationalist authoritarianism, a political phenomenon that despite the heady optimism of democratic campaigners has never been too far away.
Complacently, some believed that the thing had gone away with the end of the second world war, or with the transitions to democracy of Spain and Portugal.
The thing, however, is always there.
What happened in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany and Italy and elsewhere was always just one set of manifestations of the thing.
Populist nationalist authoritarianism has more purchase on voters than many conservatives, liberals and socialists realise.
It is the politics of easy answers.
In the United Kingdom there are those in favour of Brexit who routinely trash the (independent) courts, the (independent) civil service and diplomatic service, the universities, the broadcasters, even the supremacy of parliament.
This populist disdain for independent institutions is unhealthy.
The threat of the "will of the people" is used as intimidation.
Coupled with nationalistic rhetoric (on immigration and Brexit generally) and authoritarian hostility to legal checks on government (contempt for human rights), you have all the ingredients of the thing described by the F word.
But if you call this thing by its name, it now has little or no effect.
People will yawn and shrug and pay no real attention.
And because what we have before us is not visually the same as the 1920s and 1930s manifestation of the thing - no uniforms, no goosesteps, and so on - many of those hearing the F word will regard what is now happening as not being an example of the F word at all.
Of course, using the F word is not as important as stopping the thing it describes from taking hold.
Calling politicians - and pundits - liars, and describing the vile populist nationalist authoritarianism that they promote as the F word, is not going to stop them lying or the thing the F word describes.
The words are not enough, and it may be that new words are needed to make old warnings.
And unless voters can be made to care about being lied to by politicians, or about the implications of the populist nationalist authoritarianism (again) being promoted, then there will be little to stop either the politicians or the F word thing.
Making voters care about any of this is the challenge for liberal and progressive politicians (and pundits) in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
And the biggest challenge is to make enough voters care in time.
The L word, the F word, and contemporary UK politics
by David Allen Green
9th December 2019
In a few days there will be a general election in the United Kingdom.
This post is not about the possible election result - that is still uncertain and it may even come down to voting intentions which are as yet not settled.
This post is instead about two words that should have had more impact on the campaign, and current politics generally, but have not.
One word begins with L, the other with F.
*
The L word
The first word is "lie".
Some commentators in the United Kingdom aver that more should be done to confront politicians with their lies.
Peter Oborne, a journalist of immense integrity, has even sought to document and expose each lie of the current prime minister (the estimable website is here).
This is essential work: nothing in this post should be taken to mean that recording each lie is not important.
But it is not enough.
This is because many politicians now do not care about being called a liar, or even be shown to be one.
Such a reaction is a cost of political business for them - and some even relish that they "trigger" such a response as some perverse form of valediction.
The ultimate problem is not that many politicians lie.
The ultimate problem is far more worrying and far more difficult to resolve.
The ultimate problem is that many voters want to be lied to.
These voters may pretend otherwise, claiming that they want "honest politicians".
In reality, such voters just want politicians to say what the voters want to hear.
There is therefore an incentive for politicians to lie.
Until and unless many voters can be made to care about being lied to, every fine and worthy effort in exposing the lies is (at least in the short-term) futile - a public good but not enough to effect immediate change.
There are many political lies: small lies, forgettable lies, lies that take longer to expose than any mortal attention span.
But the biggest lie in the current general election - a lie that may determine the outcome - is "Get Brexit Done".
Brexit cannot be "done" without years of intense effort and attention.
Entire international relationships have to be rebuilt from scratch; entire areas of law and policy have to be reconstructed; entire social and economic patterns of behaviour have to be re-worked.
And all this in addition to the making of actual decisions about what we want those relationships, laws, policies, and social and economic patterns of behaviour to be.
And all that in turn against the intractable problem of fitting in a Brexit policy within the framework of the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland.
Brexit cannot be "got done" by mere exhortation.
It is a lie but a lie many want to believe and cannot be dissuaded from believing by mere arguments, logic or evidence.
And by the time many voters will come to care that they were lied to, Brexit will be too long gone for any voter choice to make much difference.
*
The F word
The second word - the F word - I will not type.
It is a word which has lost its traction when it needed to to still have traction.
The word describes the 1920s and 1930s manifestation of populist nationalist authoritarianism, a political phenomenon that despite the heady optimism of democratic campaigners has never been too far away.
Complacently, some believed that the thing had gone away with the end of the second world war, or with the transitions to democracy of Spain and Portugal.
The thing, however, is always there.
What happened in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany and Italy and elsewhere was always just one set of manifestations of the thing.
Populist nationalist authoritarianism has more purchase on voters than many conservatives, liberals and socialists realise.
It is the politics of easy answers.
In the United Kingdom there are those in favour of Brexit who routinely trash the (independent) courts, the (independent) civil service and diplomatic service, the universities, the broadcasters, even the supremacy of parliament.
This populist disdain for independent institutions is unhealthy.
The threat of the "will of the people" is used as intimidation.
Coupled with nationalistic rhetoric (on immigration and Brexit generally) and authoritarian hostility to legal checks on government (contempt for human rights), you have all the ingredients of the thing described by the F word.
But if you call this thing by its name, it now has little or no effect.
People will yawn and shrug and pay no real attention.
And because what we have before us is not visually the same as the 1920s and 1930s manifestation of the thing - no uniforms, no goosesteps, and so on - many of those hearing the F word will regard what is now happening as not being an example of the F word at all.
Of course, using the F word is not as important as stopping the thing it describes from taking hold.
Calling politicians - and pundits - liars, and describing the vile populist nationalist authoritarianism that they promote as the F word, is not going to stop them lying or the thing the F word describes.
The words are not enough, and it may be that new words are needed to make old warnings.
And unless voters can be made to care about being lied to by politicians, or about the implications of the populist nationalist authoritarianism (again) being promoted, then there will be little to stop either the politicians or the F word thing.
Making voters care about any of this is the challenge for liberal and progressive politicians (and pundits) in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
And the biggest challenge is to make enough voters care in time.
ff1d1l
pfm Member
The next cash cow. PLC naturally?
ks.234
Half way to Infinity
...nor indeed, an apology.
Seanm
pfm Member
The whole country diverged from the 2017 results, then converged on them again. What's more likely: that the results this time resemble the 2017 election, or that they resemble the 2019 European election? Given that the Lib Dems are currently polling about 11%, is it likely that starting from a base of 14.5% in Wimbledon they are likely to challenge the Tories on 46.5? Might Labour (35.6% in 2017) be in with a better shout?
I don't see how pointing out these basic figures is adding to the confusion. The confusion is a result of the sites. Just look at the 2017 results, inquire about local issues if you can, and work from there. It's much more straightforward than trying to compare the polling methods of Gina Miller's outfit vs Best for Britain vs whoever else.
Seanm
pfm Member
These f___ing people.
"Lying politicians are bad, but if they aren't held to account for their lying why wouldn't they lie? They're not the real problem! The real problem is... [looks around at friends, colleagues, various institutions dedicated to holding politicians to account...Nope, all fine]...the people they're lying too!"
Galaxy brain.
Tony L
Administrator
Even allowing you to paraphrase so inaccurately it is still not wrong, e.g. if Labour can’t even convince their own bloody electorate not to vote for a lying fascist that is clearly intent on eroding human rights and civil liberties whilst allowing party-backing asset-strippers to dismantle the state there comes a time we must conclude that electorate is pigshit stupid.
Seanm
pfm Member
You're free to think that if you like and it's certainly the usual conclusion reached by liberals, but I would not want to live in your world.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
There was an opinion piece in the Torygraph the other day, comparing May's campaigning style with Johnson's, and all but saying that Johnson's style was better mainly because he was a more convincing liar.
That's a powerful piece by someone who understands constitutional law, the implications of brexit and our political direction of travel far better than most.
Brexit apologists and those who wave away warnings of fascism, including a few on here, would do well to wind their necks in, to listen and to learn.
Marchbanks
Hat and Beard member
Or (as I have long suspected) vast swathes of the electorate really don’t give a toss and treat the election purely as a (perceived) personality contest. In this case they would rather have a bumbling buffoon who acts like Terry Scott in a bad sitcom than an ascetic grandpa, because Terry makes them laugh but grandpa always seems so serious and dull.
3
35451
Guest
Ok. The people are wrong and it's their fault (mantra) cos they just won't listen?
What to do about that?
Educate/indoctrinate them to a 'better' way of thinking? Too long too expensive, unless you take this approach:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/09/china-again-slams-us-bill-condemning-muslim-detainment-camps.html
Kill them or maybe certain tranches of them, leaving only the like-minded? Sure takes the problem away, but the F word arises again.
Keep on spending on various social programs in the hope that eventually they do get it?
cooky1257
pfm Member
I've actually moved from thinking a sizeable portion of electorate must be stupid to ignore BJ/Tory lies, racism and nascent fascism to actually believing based on the evidence doled up daily in the media that a sizeable proportion of the electorate is indeed racist/nascent fascist and BJ is exactly their type of leader.
Seanm
pfm Member
"It's the people's fault" is Green's position, and Tony's. It's the opposite of my position.
My position is that as long as you have a media system that cossets lying politicians, lying politicians are going to keep lying, and people are going to become more disillusioned, disengaged and angry.
Of course it doesn't help that there are people whose first response to the idea of media reform is, "Oh so you want to murder people do you, leaving only the like-minded?"
Please take responsibility for your own fantasies of mass murder and stop laying them at the door of the left.
- Status