UK General Election 2019

[Pannonian]

GOD they're acting like the antivaxxers.

Trump helps poison the world. The UK has little proper oversight beyond "Chaps don't do unsporting things because they're not cricket". And that is certainly not working effectively any more - if it ever really did.

There are the tools for proper oversight but they are all scattered around - the ICO, the NAO - hell, the programme "more or less" on Radio 4 does a pretty good stats review job; the Supreme Court and (in Lieu of a president figure) the monarchy. The first two are able to find the truth - especially the NAO and the other two is the framework to enforce.

Will they be plucked out of obscurity to punish liars and get people disagreeing over opinions and not facts? I'm not optimistic.

The current PM has already lied to the monarch, nothing was done about it beyond the courts ruling that the PM had lied, and the PM's organs are now back on the job, and is likely to win a majority. When people vote for known serial liars, what incentive is there to tell the truth?

[Beskar]

I thought it was the GCHQ when I casually overheard the news. Luckily, it was only the CCHQ.

Though to be fair, GCHQ is kind of 'Fact Change UK' when it comes to communications...

[Pannonian]

I thought it was the GCHQ when I casually overheard the news. Luckily, it was only the CCHQ.

Though to be fair, GCHQ is kind of 'Fact Change UK' when it comes to communications...

The Intelligence guys aren't too happy with Johnson for throwing them under the bus by blocking the publication of a report on Russian influence that they'd okayed. Together with the police not being too happy for Johnson using them for a photo op when he had no right to, I'm not sure if there are any branches of the professional government who are happy with the PM. Perhaps the armed forces.

[Idaho]

Oh come now, Ken Livingstone, that guy from the NEC claiming the whole thing was a Jewish cover-up and he's "never" seen any antisemitism in the part, the "antiracism" activisit who actually got thrown out for being antisemitic.

All Corbyn allies.

To say nothing of his links to Hamas.

They were/are Corbyn supporters. Not sure that's the same as an ally.

As for Hamas... That's a while other thread that never ends.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They were/are Corbyn supporters. Not sure that's the same as an ally.

As for Hamas... That's a while other thread that never ends.

There's also this:

[Idaho]

While your at it, how about this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...unciation.html

Utterly ridiculous. I have a German Jewish surname that gets pronounced a number of different ways. Some of which are much more accurate to how it would be pronounced in Germany now and in the past. Calling this anti-Semitic is just pathetic barrel scraping.

[Idaho]

There's also this:

That's shocking in how utterly transparent mainstream defence of Israel is being turned into concern trolling. I wouldn't be surprised if these people were hand picked and coached.

One of them even had the nerve to talk about not listening to a marginalised community, just days after the Israeli military bombed a house killing an entire family, and shrugged it off saying that it was just a mistake. While another on this video is concerned that imports of kosher biscuits might be affected and that sends chills through them. Absolutely disgraceful.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While your at it, how about this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...unciation.html

Utterly ridiculous. I have a German Jewish surname that gets pronounced a number of different ways. Some of which are much more accurate to how it would be pronounced in Germany now and in the past. Calling this anti-Semitic is just pathetic barrel scraping.

I'm not sure it's "utterly ridiculous", probably a bit overwrought but it isn't ridiculous. I think the issue here is, again, Corbyn. I can think of a number of reasons to pronounce the name Epstein in a specifically Germanic way - one is to highlight its Jewishness, another is because you're a pompous git. If it weren't for the miasma that now surrounds Corbyn I'd say it was probably the latter.

[Idaho]

I'm not sure it's "utterly ridiculous", probably a bit overwrought but it isn't ridiculous. I think the issue here is, again, Corbyn. I can think of a number of reasons to pronounce the name Epstein in a specifically Germanic way - one is to highlight its Jewishness, another is because you're a pompous git. If it weren't for the miasma that now surrounds Corbyn I'd say it was probably the latter.

I might pronounce it Ep-steyn or Ep-steen or Ep-shtine or Ep-shteen. Depends on my mood, and perhaps when I last came across the name (and hence it's pronunciation). It would be pathetic if it wasn't so clearly a shrieking defence of specific political interests.

[Pannonian]

And the Tories do it again. Just ahead of the release of the Labour manifesto, they do an attack site titled labourmanifesto.co.uk. Does it matter to Tory voters any more that the party lies and deceives as a matter of course?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And the Tories do it again. Just ahead of the release of the Labour manifesto, they do an attack site titled labourmanifesto.co.uk. Does it matter to Tory voters any more that the party lies and deceives as a matter of course?

It matters very much to our Trump voters that Trump does so -- it is part of why they love him. It is all about taking the fight to the evil lefties, which end justifies almost any means short of child murder.

[Pannonian]

It matters very much to our Trump voters that Trump does so -- it is part of why they love him. It is all about taking the fight to the evil lefties, which end justifies almost any means short of child murder.

AFAIK, or at least I used to believe so, there isn't the same wellspring of virulent hatred in the UK of anything deemed left of centre. Policy-wise, left of centre politics would still get the support of a clear majority of the people.

[Greyblades]

As loath as I am to interupt the blonde/orange man bad circle jerk, might I recomend actually looking at what the back patting is over?

Its a pretty odd method of deception to have "A WEBSITE BY THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY" right under the page title.

[rory_20_uk]

And the Tories do it again. Just ahead of the release of the Labour manifesto, they do an attack site titled labourmanifesto.co.uk. Does it matter to Tory voters any more that the party lies and deceives as a matter of course?

It does matter. It is such a shame that all parties could not promise to Leave. Since if that were the case I'd probably vote Lib Dems.

[Greyblades]

It does matter. It is such a shame that all parties could not promise to Leave. Since if that were the case I'd probably vote Lib Dems.

Hm, I think if it was the case I'd not vote at all, what I want is just plain not on offer. I was hopeful that the purge of the wets would turn the conservatives into something worth voting for, but I still see signs they are as intrusively parternalistic as ever.

The closest is what the lib dems should be, sadly the liberal part seems completely subsumed by the social democrat end.

As for lies and deception... they're politicians I dont know a time when they werent all like that.
They should kindly take a running jump with thier "This is beyond the pale, my side would/has never done something like that" faux outrage.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I might pronounce it Ep-steyn or Ep-steen or Ep-shtine or Ep-shteen. Depends on my mood, and perhaps when I last came across the name (and hence it's pronunciation). It would be pathetic if it wasn't so clearly a shrieking defence of specific political interests.

The thing is, the man in question always pronounced in Ep-steen. There's also the fact that linking his Jewishness to child abuse is a version of the old "Blood Libel".

Like I say, could just be Corbyn being a pretentious git - but that's still a bad thing.

[Pannonian]

Hm, I think if it was the case I'd not vote at all, what I want is just plain not on offer. I was hopeful that the purge of the wets would turn the conservatives into something worth voting for, but I still see signs they are as intrusively parternalistic as ever.

The closest is what the lib dems should be, sadly the liberal part seems completely subsumed by the social democrat end.

As for lies and deception... they're politicians I dont know a time when they werent all like that.
They should kindly take a running jump with thier "This is beyond the pale, my side would/has never done something like that" faux outrage.

Politicians used to deceive by omission. Outright lies were a matter for resignation. See the episode of Yes Prime Minister where Hacker assures the Commons on something that he'd been mistaken about, and worries the whole episode over having to resign if anyone found out. The current PM has a justified reputation for lying every time he opens his mouth, and not just from ignorance, but knowingly repeating confirmed lies. In the UK, this current has only really been in evidence since Brexit (on the Leave side), and taken up since then by the Tory radicals (the ones you want to control the party, since you want rid of the wets).

See Corbyn for an example of the traditional UK politician's way of deceiving, by omission. I dislike him, but he is completely different from Johnson. Johnson is Trump in terms of propensity to plain lie.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But does Johnson know he's lying?

I posit that query because I suspect -- and this is NOT a happy comment -- that Trump would actually pass a polygraph test when he makes his claims.

[Pannonian]

But does Johnson know he's lying?

I posit that query because I suspect -- and this is NOT a happy comment -- that Trump would actually pass a polygraph test when he makes his claims.

Yes he does. While I wouldn't class him as a political genius (none of the various front benches qualify), he's not stupid, and he repeats stuff that have been confirmed as lies. I think he's more self-aware than Corbyn, and is aware that he's lying, but unlike Corbyn, he doesn't care. His raison d'etre is to be PM for as long as possible, and he follows the instructions of his handlers as he's too lazy to do the work, not as well versed in doctrine as Corbyn to have a ready answer to select areas, and isn't bright enough to improvise a good answer. Any improvised answer is disastrous, so he just repeats stuff that his handlers reckon he can get away with.

Everyone who has worked with Johnson in the past says that lying is his main characteristic. Well, that and laziness, which causes him to lie to turn in the words for which he's paid. A few weeks ago the Telegraph had to settle the aftermath of another of his lying articles. Max Hastings, a former editor of his, is adamant that there are few, if any, worse candidates to be PM in terms of personal qualities. Most of his former colleagues detest him for his (non) working habits. He is loved by the owners of the Telegraph (and the other right wing press) as the ultimate in blank cheques. For as long as Johnson is PM, he will sign whatever they want him to sign, and he is happy to continue doing so for as long as they will keep him in number 10.

Edit: Max Hastings: I was Boris Johnson’s boss: he is utterly unfit to be prime minister

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Politicians used to deceive by omission. Outright lies were a matter for resignation. See the episode of Yes Prime Minister where Hacker assures the Commons on something that he'd been mistaken about, and worries the whole episode over having to resign if anyone found out. The current PM has a justified reputation for lying every time he opens his mouth, and not just from ignorance, but knowingly repeating confirmed lies. In the UK, this current has only really been in evidence since Brexit (on the Leave side), and taken up since then by the Tory radicals (the ones you want to control the party, since you want rid of the wets).

See Corbyn for an example of the traditional UK politician's way of deceiving, by omission. I dislike him, but he is completely different from Johnson. Johnson is Trump in terms of propensity to plain lie.

Corbyn definitely has told outright lies, though. He said during the televised debate that Johnson only got his deal through with the help of the DUP. In reality every member of the DUP voted against it.

[Pannonian]

Corbyn definitely has told outright lies, though. He said during the televised debate that Johnson only got his deal through with the help of the DUP. In reality every member of the DUP voted against it.

TBF, Corbyn is muddled when it comes to Brexit. He could have just as accurately said that the Tories are only in this position to carry out Brexit thanks to his personal support of it. And it does matter a bit just how many lies are told though. IIRC in Johnson's first political broadcast since announcing the election, proper fact checkers (as opposed to Tory HQ twitter) counted at least 6 lies or distortions in a very short speech. I know that a major company in one of the industries that Johnson cited in support of his deal denounced his claim as a lie, and stated that it's safe to assume that anything Boris Johnson says to be untrue.

Boris Johnson ridiculed by British sock makers over claim they are locked out of US market

“My opinion is that if it comes out of Boris Johnson’s mouth it’s likely not to be true, you may quote me on that if it helps,” he said.

[Furunculus]

Let me get this straight:

when corbyn lies he is just muddled.
when he claims the tories want to sell off the nhs he merely mispoke.
when the guardian headline lies about what priti patel actually said it's just, you know, election rhetoric.

but when boris makes a mess of of one lining his as yet unannounced national insurance plans....

“LIES!!! Bring hellfire on ruinination down on all his line unto the 13th generation!”

have i got this right?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

TBF, Corbyn is muddled when it comes to Brexit. He could have just as accurately said that the Tories are only in this position to carry out Brexit thanks to his personal support of it. And it does matter a bit just how many lies are told though. IIRC in Johnson's first political broadcast since announcing the election, proper fact checkers (as opposed to Tory HQ twitter) counted at least 6 lies or distortions in a very short speech. I know that a major company in one of the industries that Johnson cited in support of his deal denounced his claim as a lie, and stated that it's safe to assume that anything Boris Johnson says to be untrue.

Boris Johnson ridiculed by British sock makers over claim they are locked out of US market

You make Corbyn sound senile.

Pretty sure Trump is senile - look how that's working out.

[Pannonian]

You make Corbyn sound senile.

Pretty sure Trump is senile - look how that's working out.

Not senile. Dense. Corbyn's as intellectually competent now as he's ever been, which is not very. One advantage he has over Johnson is that Corbyn is thoroughly well read in areas he believes in, so when a discussion touches on these areas, he has a ready answer, as he's well versed in what doctrine says about it. In contrast, Johnson has his classical education, and he probably has a higher intellectual ceiling than Corbyn, but he's the laziest politician I've ever seen, and he prefers to blag and let his connections take him out of the trouble he's caused.

Neither of them is a good candidate for PM. Johnson is the worse by a wide margin.

[Pannonian]

Let me get this straight:

when corbyn lies he is just muddled.
when he claims the tories want to sell off the nhs he merely mispoke.
when the guardian headline lies about what priti patel actually said it's just, you know, election rhetoric.

but when boris makes a mess of of one lining his as yet unannounced national insurance plans....

“LIES!!! Bring hellfire on ruinination down on all his line unto the 13th generation!”

have i got this right?

Are you trying to get me to defend Corbyn? I've said on many occasions that I think he's an idiot. Go back a few pages to the Labour party thread where I got into disputes with true believers.

[Beskar]

And the Tories do it again. Just ahead of the release of the Labour manifesto, they do an attack site titled labourmanifesto.co.uk. Does it matter to Tory voters any more that the party lies and deceives as a matter of course?

Some random set up the https://www.thetorymanifesto.com/ in response which is now making its rounds.

[Idaho]

There's also this:

This video is the equal and opposite of this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...o-antisemitism

Both are essentially bollocks. Click bait for the converted. It's news pumped out like viruses or bacteria. It's meant for someone to click on and paste somewhere - like you and me have done. The advertisers get the money (Google probably in both cases, and the respective "newspapers" get a cut. But does it actually mean anything Phillip? Is it just internet froth manipulated by advertisers, media pundits and political backers?

Of course there is a kernel of truth in both. But there is a kernel of truth in most bland, circumstantial correlations.

Is this as good as it gets?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This video is the equal and opposite of this:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...o-antisemitism

Both are essentially bollocks. Click bait for the converted. It's news pumped out like viruses or bacteria. It's meant for someone to click on and paste somewhere - like you and me have done. The advertisers get the money (Google probably in both cases, and the respective "newspapers" get a cut. But does it actually mean anything Phillip? Is it just internet froth manipulated by advertisers, media pundits and political backers?

Of course there is a kernel of truth in both. But there is a kernel of truth in most bland, circumstantial correlations.

Is this as good as it gets?

Honestly, I personally find the preponderance of evidence of Corbyn's antisemitism persuasive. It's not the relationship with Ken Livingstone (although they were close), it's not the forward to the book (though the book was a foundational text for 20th Century antisemitism), it's not the mural (though that's obviously peddling a conspiracy theory), it's not even the time Corbyn insinuated "Zionists" weren't properly English.

It's the whole shebang, Idaho - it's when you take more than two of those things and you have to ask "how stupid is he?" This Epshtien thing is just the latest example - and it DOES feed directly into the medieval blood-libel.

So, really, this election is about choosing between Boris Johnson who's entire political philosophy seems to be quoting Cicero and expediency, and Corbyn who's pretty definitely probably might be an antisemite.

[Pannonian]

Honestly, I personally find the preponderance of evidence of Corbyn's antisemitism persuasive. It's not the relationship with Ken Livingstone (although they were close), it's not the forward to the book (though the book was a foundational text for 20th Century antisemitism), it's not the mural (though that's obviously peddling a conspiracy theory), it's not even the time Corbyn insinuated "Zionists" weren't properly English.

It's the whole shebang, Idaho - it's when you take more than two of those things and you have to ask "how stupid is he?" This Epshtien thing is just the latest example - and it DOES feed directly into the medieval blood-libel.

So, really, this election is about choosing between Boris Johnson who's entire political philosophy seems to be quoting Cicero and expediency, and Corbyn who's pretty definitely probably might be an antisemite.

Are you trying to paint it that Johnson is a political pragmatist while Corbyn is defined by antisemitism? Antisemitism is just one form of racism, against Jews. Corbyn is antisemitic by association, damned because he's too dumb to disassociate from friends who are antisemitic. He himself associates with them because he is dogmatically anti-west, the kind Orwell satirised in his essays. OTOH, Johnson is directly racist, against multiple groups (I can find direct quotes against blacks, Muslims, and within the UK, against Scousers). You'll find stuff in his record that you won't find in Corbyn's. Corbyn is an idiot who recognises what he does himself but isn't bright enough to see beyond it. Johnson is a genuinely unpleasant and prejudiced individual.

About his political pragmatism: no he's not. You're fooling yourself if you think it. He's just a lazy bastard who does what his handlers tell him to. His "journalistic" record is reflective of his political record. He doesn't research. He doesn't bother to learn about what he's talking about. He just blags on the spot, trusting to his "charm" and classical education to give him a quote whenever it's demanded. His handlers have learned that this leads to trouble, so he's now kept from unplanned questions (how many PMQs has he faced?), and his shtick consists of hammering on a few memes with some rhetorical tricks to bring everything back to those few memes. If you think it's a good idea to be ruled by the likes of Cummings, then say it out loud.

[Furunculus]

We could instead have seamus “bring the revolution” milne - commissar of citizen doctrinal purity!

easy choice.... :D