She has had the whip restored, and so is once again a serving Labour MP.
It's hard to see what all the fuss is about - surely, all that is needed is for Starmer to confirm that she can stand for re-election, and for her to then retire gracefully.
However, Starmer seems reluctant...one is tempted to wonder why...
She's not. The HoC isn't sitting and there are no serving MPs.
She has had the whip restored, and so is once again a serving Labour MP.
It's hard to see what all the fuss is about - surely, all that is needed is for Starmer to confirm that she can stand for re-election, and for her to then retire gracefully.
However, Starmer seems reluctant...one is tempted to wonder why...
She's not. The HoC isn't sitting and there are no serving MPs.
Point taken. You're quite right, of course.
Frankly, I hadn't really noticed that, for the time being, we have no government...
For Starmer to take no position on whether Abbott should stand seems the worst possible thing for him to do though. It pleases nobody. I think either decision would be defensible but he should do one or the other!
I thought his position was that the appropriate committee would decide on Tuesday. If he pre-empted it, he would get slated.
Yes, I wondered if this might be the case. He is a lawyer, after all, and seems to tread carefully - however much this may upset one side or t'other.
Frankly, I hadn't really noticed that, for the time being, we have no government...
It may feel as though we don't have a government, but all Ministers remain in post until a new government is formed after the election. What government can do is restricted, but it still exists.
Frankly, I hadn't really noticed that, for the time being, we have no government...
It may feel as though we don't have a government, but all Ministers remain in post until a new government is formed after the election. What government can do is restricted, but it still exists.
Yes, I appreciate that, but there is a sort of general feeling, I think, in England at least, that the so-called government gave up actually governing quite some time ago...
It may be that Starmer has announced this sooner than he would have liked, but hopefully it will stand him in good stead, anyway. As I said earlier, I hope Ms Abbott wins again, with an even bigger majority! She deserves it...
Thanks @alienfromzog . The Diane Abbott affair seems to be making the headlines again, so I hope Labour will soon resolve this. I suspect that there is more to it than meets the eye.
Yes, the BBC seems to be giving that story a huge amount of publicity, nearly as much as it seems to give Farage. I can't help suspecting the story has been set going on her behalf by friends and supporters to try to make sure she doesn't get stopped from standing.
Which of Abbott's friends and supporters do you imagine has the clout to get a Murdoch paper to run a fake story? Far, far more likely (and in keeping with previous behaviour) to be Luke Akehurst or one of the other nasty little thugs around Starmer.
There is rumour and counter rumour about the investigation into her letter to the Observer and what was happening at this election. My best guess is that Starmer was not blocking her from standing at all. Rayner's comment in her recent Sky interview would be very odd if the leadership actually wanted to block her.
This is only odd if you take a strangely naive view of 'the leadership' - which isn't the unitary thing you are making it out to be.
Starmer, or at least those around him, have briefed against Rayner in the past, and remember that back in 2021 he tried to demote her before having to backtrack.
While she isn't on the left, or even soft left, those around Starmer don't really trust her - if only because as she has her own mandate from the membership as deputy leader.
What is clear is that if we take the - now accepted - timeline that the investigation into what Abbott said was concluded in December, then Starmer has been very misleading ever since in implying that she had yet to be cleared and that he was playing no role in her future.
Probably someone close to the leadership leaked it to the Times, thinking it would be helpful. It wasn't. My other guess is that she wanted to get the whip back and then stand down as a Labour MP. I don't think she wanted to run.
Together with the action against Faiza Shaheen and Lloyd Russell Moyle, the very different fate of Neil Coyle, along with a number of the NEC members being parachuted into safe seats, it is clear that there is a grouping on the right who have decided to take this as an opportunity to boot out people who aren't of their faction.
If you are a Labour supporter this should worry you, the particular faction that is on the ascendant have actually very little politics apart from score settling, and in general hiring people whose two settings are 'leak' and 'plot' doesn't do much for stability.
I think what's going on here is that they are/were looking for a solution to effectively deselect DA without it actually needing to be said.
The truth is that the final decision is with the whip, who of course will only do things in parallel with Starmer. The hope was that DA would slope off into history if technically she retained the whip, but Starmer was left looking rather stupid when she refused. It was then unsatisfactorily left to the whips to officially/unofficial let it be known that DA wouldn't be standing. And it was only pressure and publicity that made any difference.
I fully expect DA to be re-elected and then immediately have the whip revoked. She'll sit with Corbyn on the back row and snipe but it will make no difference to anyone.
I think what's going on here is that they are/were looking for a solution to effectively deselect DA without it actually needing to be said.
.. and that what happened was that a faction who thought they are too clever by half (and possibly fancied the seat) went and leaked the plan to the press.
Apart from anything else; the timeline shows that at the very least Starmer has been misleading the press about the precise status of the investigation, and the extent to which he or his office had any influence on the outcome.
There is rumour and counter rumour about the investigation into her letter to the Observer and what was happening at this election. My best guess is that Starmer was not blocking her from standing at all. Rayner's comment in her recent Sky interview would be very odd if the leadership actually wanted to block her.
This is only odd if you take a strangely naive view of 'the leadership' - which isn't the unitary thing you are making it out to be.
Starmer, or at least those around him, have briefed against Rayner in the past, and remember that back in 2021 he tried to demote her before having to backtrack.
While she isn't on the left, or even soft left, those around Starmer don't really trust her - if only because as she has her own mandate from the membership as deputy leader.
What is clear is that if we take the - now accepted - timeline that the investigation into what Abbott said was concluded in December, then Starmer has been very misleading ever since in implying that she had yet to be cleared and that he was playing no role in her future.
Probably someone close to the leadership leaked it to the Times, thinking it would be helpful. It wasn't. My other guess is that she wanted to get the whip back and then stand down as a Labour MP. I don't think she wanted to run.
Together with the action against Faiza Shaheen and Lloyd Russell Moyle, the very different fate of Neil Coyle, along with a number of the NEC members being parachuted into safe seats, it is clear that there is a grouping on the right who have decided to take this as an opportunity to boot out people who aren't of their faction.
If you are a Labour supporter this should worry you, the particular faction that is on the ascendant have actually very little politics apart from score settling, and in general hiring people whose two settings are 'leak' and 'plot' doesn't do much for stability.
Naive, maybe. But I do not buy either the Machiavellian characterisation of the Labour Party, nor the idea that Starmer and Rayner are constantly at war.
Either way, Abbott will be the Labour candidate if she chooses to be and the campaign moves on.
There is rumour and counter rumour about the investigation into her letter to the Observer and what was happening at this election. My best guess is that Starmer was not blocking her from standing at all. Rayner's comment in her recent Sky interview would be very odd if the leadership actually wanted to block her.
This is only odd if you take a strangely naive view of 'the leadership' - which isn't the unitary thing you are making it out to be.
Starmer, or at least those around him, have briefed against Rayner in the past, and remember that back in 2021 he tried to demote her before having to backtrack.
While she isn't on the left, or even soft left, those around Starmer don't really trust her - if only because as she has her own mandate from the membership as deputy leader.
What is clear is that if we take the - now accepted - timeline that the investigation into what Abbott said was concluded in December, then Starmer has been very misleading ever since in implying that she had yet to be cleared and that he was playing no role in her future.
Probably someone close to the leadership leaked it to the Times, thinking it would be helpful. It wasn't. My other guess is that she wanted to get the whip back and then stand down as a Labour MP. I don't think she wanted to run.
Together with the action against Faiza Shaheen and Lloyd Russell Moyle, the very different fate of Neil Coyle, along with a number of the NEC members being parachuted into safe seats, it is clear that there is a grouping on the right who have decided to take this as an opportunity to boot out people who aren't of their faction.
If you are a Labour supporter this should worry you, the particular faction that is on the ascendant have actually very little politics apart from score settling, and in general hiring people whose two settings are 'leak' and 'plot' doesn't do much for stability.
Naive, maybe. But I do not buy either the Machiavellian characterisation of the Labour Party, nor the idea that Starmer and Rayner are constantly at war.
It's not Machiavellian to suggest that parties which are a 'broad church' will contain multiple factions, and that these factions will often be at odds with each other. A few years back Compass put out a 'beginners guide to the Labour Party' podcast featuring this episode on the factions:
It covers how the factions and their associated ginger groups self define and see themselves (with representations from each of them) rather than the usual newspaper characterisation along personality lines.
Whether you like it or not the current NEC (and by implication their chosen candidates - which includes themselves) are dominated by a particular strain of the Labour Right who see things in narrowly factional terms, again; compare the cases of Graham Jones and Neil Coyle with Diane Abbott and Faiza Shaheen. Part of the evidence against the latter were tweets supporting the Green Party made before she even joined Labour:
Amusingly when asked about his deleted tweets, Akehurst replied (to the Metro):
‘It’s quite standard that people that are standing for public office or even applying for a new job might delete tweets to give – you know, if you’re running in an election – not give your opponents a large library of things that they can quote out of context
Whether they are not the same is rather incidental to efficacy of the policy. GB Energy is an investment arm for the private sector rather than an energy company; it won't sell or produce energy, nor will it own any energy infrastructure. Given the big renewable stations already have a raft of financial incentives they can draw on, it remains to be seen what the impact GBEnergy will have (worst case; content for the Private Eye).
This has caught my interest in the constituency where (full disclosure) I am registered to vote.
I suspect Mr Knight's decision may well split the right wing vote between himself and any candidate the Tories can come up with in which case this true blue seat may end up with its first ever Labour MP.
Apparently the government thinks its a good idea to encourage overseas electors to register in marginal seats. I agree with them although not for the same reasons
Backing up a bit ... on the 'lies' thing and the 'they all do it' canard which @Telford touted.
I can honestly say from a local/regional perspective, that I've seen all parties make mistakes or howlers in their campaign literature.
What I don't see, in any of the parties other than the Conservatives are deliberate attempts to mislead.
I really don't know how they have the gall.
I could cite examples of Conservative campaign literature that blatantly promises that they will do things that aren't even within the remit of the town councils or local authorities where they stand. And they know darn well that they can't.
I've seen them send out misleading information designed to catch people out and not look as if it's party-political at all.
I've not seen any of the other political parties do that.
I don't know how they can sleep at night.
'Dishonest' and 'lying' doesn't come anywhere near it.
I tackled a young Tory candidate on the doors several times during the last regional election campaign and called him out for talking and promising complete bollocks.
I pointed out the factual errors and downright falsehoods in his campaign literature and he pretended he was completely unaware of them even though it was obvious he was lying through his teeth.
I'm a reasonable and moderate bloke and the lefties here probably think I'm a 'Yellow Tory' but there's one thing I will never, ever condone from the Conservatives and that's their cynical, entitled and bare-faced exploitation of people's lack of awareness of how local government works.
I despise them for it.
I call 'shame'.
Lying is too mild a word for it.
Look into it, @Telford. You'd be shocked. Lies, lies then more lies.
And we know who is the 'Father of Lies' don't we?
They would push their own Granny under a bus to get elected. Machiavellian isn't a strong enough term.
I'm being serious. It's lying on an industrial scale.
Backing up a bit ... on the 'lies' thing and the 'they all do it' canard which @Telford touted.
I can honestly say from a local/regional perspective, that I've seen all parties make mistakes or howlers in their campaign literature.
What I don't see, in any of the parties other than the Conservatives are deliberate attempts to mislead.
I really don't know how they have the gall.
I could cite examples of Conservative campaign literature that blatantly promises that they will do things that aren't even within the remit of the town councils or local authorities where they stand. And they know darn well that they can't.
I've seen them send out misleading information designed to catch people out and not look as if it's party-political at all.
I've not seen any of the other political parties do that.
I don't know how they can sleep at night.
'Dishonest' and 'lying' doesn't come anywhere near it.
I tackled a young Tory candidate on the doors several times during the last regional election campaign and called him out for talking and promising complete bollocks.
I pointed out the factual errors and downright falsehoods in his campaign literature and he pretended he was completely unaware of them even though it was obvious he was lying through his teeth.
I'm a reasonable and moderate bloke and the lefties here probably think I'm a 'Yellow Tory' but there's one thing I will never, ever condone from the Conservatives and that's their cynical, entitled and bare-faced exploitation of people's lack of awareness of how local government works.
I despise them for it.
I call 'shame'.
Lying is too mild a word for it.
Look into it, @Telford. You'd be shocked. Lies, lies then more lies.
And we know who is the 'Father of Lies' don't we?
They would push their own Granny under a bus to get elected. Machiavellian isn't a strong enough term.
I'm being serious. It's lying on an industrial scale.
Let me give you an example of Labour lies. They keep demanding to know how the Conservatives intend to pay for the elimination of all national insurance payments. It's not a Conservative proposal. It's just an ambition mentioned by Jeremy Hunt for some time in the future when finances allow for it.
To pretend that it's a current proposal is a big lie.
Backing up a bit ... on the 'lies' thing and the 'they all do it' canard which @Telford touted.
I can honestly say from a local/regional perspective, that I've seen all parties make mistakes or howlers in their campaign literature.
What I don't see, in any of the parties other than the Conservatives are deliberate attempts to mislead.
I really don't know how they have the gall.
I could cite examples of Conservative campaign literature that blatantly promises that they will do things that aren't even within the remit of the town councils or local authorities where they stand. And they know darn well that they can't.
I've seen them send out misleading information designed to catch people out and not look as if it's party-political at all.
I've not seen any of the other political parties do that.
I don't know how they can sleep at night.
'Dishonest' and 'lying' doesn't come anywhere near it.
I tackled a young Tory candidate on the doors several times during the last regional election campaign and called him out for talking and promising complete bollocks.
I pointed out the factual errors and downright falsehoods in his campaign literature and he pretended he was completely unaware of them even though it was obvious he was lying through his teeth.
I'm a reasonable and moderate bloke and the lefties here probably think I'm a 'Yellow Tory' but there's one thing I will never, ever condone from the Conservatives and that's their cynical, entitled and bare-faced exploitation of people's lack of awareness of how local government works.
I despise them for it.
I call 'shame'.
Lying is too mild a word for it.
Look into it, @Telford. You'd be shocked. Lies, lies then more lies.
And we know who is the 'Father of Lies' don't we?
They would push their own Granny under a bus to get elected. Machiavellian isn't a strong enough term.
I'm being serious. It's lying on an industrial scale.
Let me give you an example of Labour lies. They keep demanding to know how the Conservatives intend to pay for the elimination of all national insurance payments. It's not a Conservative proposal. It's just an ambition mentioned by Jeremy Hunt for some time in the future when finances allow for it.
To pretend that it's a current proposal is a big lie.
Care to explain the practical difference between an ambition and a proposal? Is it anything other than trying to get electoral benefit for the former without having to trouble yourself with the practicalities of the matter? If I announce my "ambition" to import cheese from the moon and try to get people to vote for me in the expectation of tasty moon cheese aren't people entitled to ask about the practicalities?
Backing up a bit ... on the 'lies' thing and the 'they all do it' canard which @Telford touted.
I can honestly say from a local/regional perspective, that I've seen all parties make mistakes or howlers in their campaign literature.
What I don't see, in any of the parties other than the Conservatives are deliberate attempts to mislead.
I really don't know how they have the gall.
I could cite examples of Conservative campaign literature that blatantly promises that they will do things that aren't even within the remit of the town councils or local authorities where they stand. And they know darn well that they can't.
I've seen them send out misleading information designed to catch people out and not look as if it's party-political at all.
I've not seen any of the other political parties do that.
I don't know how they can sleep at night.
'Dishonest' and 'lying' doesn't come anywhere near it.
I tackled a young Tory candidate on the doors several times during the last regional election campaign and called him out for talking and promising complete bollocks.
I pointed out the factual errors and downright falsehoods in his campaign literature and he pretended he was completely unaware of them even though it was obvious he was lying through his teeth.
I'm a reasonable and moderate bloke and the lefties here probably think I'm a 'Yellow Tory' but there's one thing I will never, ever condone from the Conservatives and that's their cynical, entitled and bare-faced exploitation of people's lack of awareness of how local government works.
I despise them for it.
I call 'shame'.
Lying is too mild a word for it.
Look into it, @Telford. You'd be shocked. Lies, lies then more lies.
And we know who is the 'Father of Lies' don't we?
They would push their own Granny under a bus to get elected. Machiavellian isn't a strong enough term.
I'm being serious. It's lying on an industrial scale.
Let me give you an example of Labour lies. They keep demanding to know how the Conservatives intend to pay for the elimination of all national insurance payments. It's not a Conservative proposal. It's just an ambition mentioned by Jeremy Hunt for some time in the future when finances allow for it.
To pretend that it's a current proposal is a big lie.
Care to explain the practical difference between an ambition and a proposal? Is it anything other than trying to get electoral benefit for the former without having to trouble yourself with the practicalities of the matter? If I announce my "ambition" to import cheese from the moon and try to get people to vote for me in the expectation of tasty moon cheese aren't people entitled to ask about the practicalities?
Labour is pretending that it is a proposal for the next 5 years and that just isn't true.
You will notice that I didn't say that any of the political parties are 'squeaky-clean' and that I was referring to regional campaigns.
I've seen good, bad and indifferent behaviour from all the political parties. I don't agree with everything I've seen - or even included - in my own political party's literature.
But round here, I've never seen Labour put forward an aspiration in way that makes it sound anything other than that. Their campaign literature makes a clear distinction between what is an 'ambition' and an actual promise.
The Tories don't do that. Worse, they make no attempt to distinguish fact from fiction, illusion from reality.
I've known Labour take credit for things other political groups have done - including my own - and they've accused us of doing the same elsewhere.
I don't doubt that happens. Across the board.
I have my own issues with Labour but from what I've seen during my involvement with local and regional politics they are very good at trying to explain issues and 'educate' people how the system operates at a local level.
The Conservatives do the complete opposite. They rely on people not knowing how things work and they cynically exploit that.
They have no compunction about putting things in their campaign literature that they know darn well they aren't in a position to 'deliver' and react badly whenever anyone calls them out on it.
In fairness, and in the interests of balance, I have known them act decisively and without fudge when mavericks within their own group made personal attacks on a councillor from another party in their campaign literature.
I applaud that and give credit where it's due.
I think it was @Enoch who wrote somewhere on these boards that his local Green Party had included falsehoods and inaccuracies in their campaign material.
I've not seen the literature wherever he happens to be and can't comment. What I have seen are several regional and general elections during the time I've been involved in local politics and got a feel for each political party's approach.
That doesn't mean I 'despise' individual Conservative councillors or activists. Far from it. I was saddened when some very capable Conservative councillors lost their seats last time and some equally highly capable Labour councillors the same.
This isn't an ad hominem attack on individual Conservative councillors or activists. Far from it.
But it is an uncharacteristically passionate attack on what I see s deliberate attempts to mislead the electorate.
Heck, we've had examples this last week of The Telegraph putting out stories about alleged Labour plans that turn out to have no basis in fact.
The Conservative media has a track record of doing that.
And much as I know you don't want to hear it, the Conservative Party has a track record of putting misleading information in its campaign literature too.
It runs all the way down from the top - remember Boris's Brexit battle-bus? to town and parish council level.
People need to be aware and look into these things for themselves. The Conservatives rely on people not doing so. They exploit and promote ignorance of the political process and cynically manipulate it for their own ends.
Don't believe me? Ask some questions in your own area. Check it out.
Backing up a bit ... on the 'lies' thing and the 'they all do it' canard which @Telford touted.
I can honestly say from a local/regional perspective, that I've seen all parties make mistakes or howlers in their campaign literature.
What I don't see, in any of the parties other than the Conservatives are deliberate attempts to mislead.
I really don't know how they have the gall.
I could cite examples of Conservative campaign literature that blatantly promises that they will do things that aren't even within the remit of the town councils or local authorities where they stand. And they know darn well that they can't.
I've seen them send out misleading information designed to catch people out and not look as if it's party-political at all.
I've not seen any of the other political parties do that.
I don't know how they can sleep at night.
'Dishonest' and 'lying' doesn't come anywhere near it.
I tackled a young Tory candidate on the doors several times during the last regional election campaign and called him out for talking and promising complete bollocks.
I pointed out the factual errors and downright falsehoods in his campaign literature and he pretended he was completely unaware of them even though it was obvious he was lying through his teeth.
I'm a reasonable and moderate bloke and the lefties here probably think I'm a 'Yellow Tory' but there's one thing I will never, ever condone from the Conservatives and that's their cynical, entitled and bare-faced exploitation of people's lack of awareness of how local government works.
I despise them for it.
I call 'shame'.
Lying is too mild a word for it.
Look into it, @Telford. You'd be shocked. Lies, lies then more lies.
And we know who is the 'Father of Lies' don't we?
They would push their own Granny under a bus to get elected. Machiavellian isn't a strong enough term.
I'm being serious. It's lying on an industrial scale.
Let me give you an example of Labour lies. They keep demanding to know how the Conservatives intend to pay for the elimination of all national insurance payments. It's not a Conservative proposal. It's just an ambition mentioned by Jeremy Hunt for some time in the future when finances allow for it.
To pretend that it's a current proposal is a big lie.
Care to explain the practical difference between an ambition and a proposal? Is it anything other than trying to get electoral benefit for the former without having to trouble yourself with the practicalities of the matter? If I announce my "ambition" to import cheese from the moon and try to get people to vote for me in the expectation of tasty moon cheese aren't people entitled to ask about the practicalities?
Labour is pretending that it is a proposal for the next 5 years and that just isn't true.
Backing up a bit ... on the 'lies' thing and the 'they all do it' canard which @Telford touted.
I can honestly say from a local/regional perspective, that I've seen all parties make mistakes or howlers in their campaign literature.
What I don't see, in any of the parties other than the Conservatives are deliberate attempts to mislead.
I really don't know how they have the gall.
I could cite examples of Conservative campaign literature that blatantly promises that they will do things that aren't even within the remit of the town councils or local authorities where they stand. And they know darn well that they can't.
I've seen them send out misleading information designed to catch people out and not look as if it's party-political at all.
I've not seen any of the other political parties do that.
I don't know how they can sleep at night.
'Dishonest' and 'lying' doesn't come anywhere near it.
I tackled a young Tory candidate on the doors several times during the last regional election campaign and called him out for talking and promising complete bollocks.
I pointed out the factual errors and downright falsehoods in his campaign literature and he pretended he was completely unaware of them even though it was obvious he was lying through his teeth.
I'm a reasonable and moderate bloke and the lefties here probably think I'm a 'Yellow Tory' but there's one thing I will never, ever condone from the Conservatives and that's their cynical, entitled and bare-faced exploitation of people's lack of awareness of how local government works.
I despise them for it.
I call 'shame'.
Lying is too mild a word for it.
Look into it, @Telford. You'd be shocked. Lies, lies then more lies.
And we know who is the 'Father of Lies' don't we?
They would push their own Granny under a bus to get elected. Machiavellian isn't a strong enough term.
I'm being serious. It's lying on an industrial scale.
Let me give you an example of Labour lies. They keep demanding to know how the Conservatives intend to pay for the elimination of all national insurance payments. It's not a Conservative proposal. It's just an ambition mentioned by Jeremy Hunt for some time in the future when finances allow for it.
To pretend that it's a current proposal is a big lie.
Care to explain the practical difference between an ambition and a proposal? Is it anything other than trying to get electoral benefit for the former without having to trouble yourself with the practicalities of the matter? If I announce my "ambition" to import cheese from the moon and try to get people to vote for me in the expectation of tasty moon cheese aren't people entitled to ask about the practicalities?
Labour is pretending that it is a proposal for the next 5 years and that just isn't true.
Source?
The majority of L:abour MPs who appear on tv programmes which I watch.
You will notice that I didn't say that any of the political parties are 'squeaky-clean' and that I was referring to regional campaigns. etc etc
We once played Wolvernhampton Councillors at a local bowling club. I played against one particular councillor who I knew quite well. On one occasion. He bowled too long and the ball went into the gutter. I bowled to within a few feet of the jack, He bowled again and his bowl again went into the gutter. I dropped my second bowl on the turf and said, " That's 2 for to me". He said, " You didn't try". I replied, " I didn't need to" He said " You're cheating". He then grinned and said, " Never play a politician" He later became an excellent local Labour MP and we were friends.
You will notice that I didn't say that any of the political parties are 'squeaky-clean' and that I was referring to regional campaigns.
I've seen good, bad and indifferent behaviour from all the political parties. I don't agree with everything I've seen - or even included - in my own political party's literature.
But round here, I've never seen Labour put forward an aspiration in way that makes it sound anything other than that. Their campaign literature makes a clear distinction between what is an 'ambition' and an actual promise.
The Tories don't do that. Worse, they make no attempt to distinguish fact from fiction, illusion from reality.
I've known Labour take credit for things other political groups have done - including my own - and they've accused us of doing the same elsewhere.
I don't doubt that happens. Across the board.
I have my own issues with Labour but from what I've seen during my involvement with local and regional politics they are very good at trying to explain issues and 'educate' people how the system operates at a local level.
The Conservatives do the complete opposite. They rely on people not knowing how things work and they cynically exploit that.
They have no compunction about putting things in their campaign literature that they know darn well they aren't in a position to 'deliver' and react badly whenever anyone calls them out on it.
In fairness, and in the interests of balance, I have known them act decisively and without fudge when mavericks within their own group made personal attacks on a councillor from another party in their campaign literature.
I applaud that and give credit where it's due.
I think it was @Enoch who wrote somewhere on these boards that his local Green Party had included falsehoods and inaccuracies in their campaign material.
I've not seen the literature wherever he happens to be and can't comment. What I have seen are several regional and general elections during the time I've been involved in local politics and got a feel for each political party's approach.
That doesn't mean I 'despise' individual Conservative councillors or activists. Far from it. I was saddened when some very capable Conservative councillors lost their seats last time and some equally highly capable Labour councillors the same.
This isn't an ad hominem attack on individual Conservative councillors or activists. Far from it.
But it is an uncharacteristically passionate attack on what I see s deliberate attempts to mislead the electorate.
Heck, we've had examples this last week of The Telegraph putting out stories about alleged Labour plans that turn out to have no basis in fact.
The Conservative media has a track record of doing that.
And much as I know you don't want to hear it, the Conservative Party has a track record of putting misleading information in its campaign literature too.
It runs all the way down from the top - remember Boris's Brexit battle-bus? to town and parish council level.
People need to be aware and look into these things for themselves. The Conservatives rely on people not doing so. They exploit and promote ignorance of the political process and cynically manipulate it for their own ends.
Don't believe me? Ask some questions in your own area. Check it out.
As a fellow Liberal I was about to reply to your previous post about lying/misleading with the observation that one of the few things the Lib Dems are actually known for at internet meme level are the hopelessly misleading bar charts they’ve been pumping out in election literature for years….!
‘Only the Lib Dems can beat the Tories/Labour here’
[shows demonstrative bar chart of incumbent MP on 42%, Lib Dems second on 22% but with a bar just shorter than the 42% one, other party third on 21% but with a bar barely detectable to the naked eye]
Sure. I can cite plenty of examples of friendships and collaborations amongst people with very different political views.
And it's all very heartening and commendable.
No political party has a monopoly on decent people any more than than they have a monopoly on bozos.
That's not the point I'm making here.
A former Parliamentary candidate in my own political party once readily admitted to me that my own, and other, political parties do exactly what the Conservatives do on occasion - put a spin on things, use facts and details selectively, exaggerate and stir up rumours etc.
'The difference is that the Tories do it on an industrial scale,' they concluded.
Heck, I've even known of instances where Labour and Conservative councillors and activists have joined forces to bad-mouth and attempt to undermine Lib Dem candidates.
Politics can be a dirty business and I'm not saying my own party is beyond reproach either.
The Tory lad I mentioned is a decent and well-meaning guy. I'd have him down as sincere and naive rather than wicked.
But he continued to promote factual inaccuracies even after I'd pointed them out. He was speechless for a moment and it was obvious that he'd swallowed the misleading line fed to him by his elders. I'll modify my comments upthread. I'm not sure he entirely believed the bollocks in his election leaflets but am prepared to accept he broadly took them on in good faith to some extent.
My issue isn't with him so much as the cynical manipulators running the Tory campaign.
We've seen Tory spokespeople and the Conservative media put out all manner of misinformation about Labour's plans in recent days.
They do it all the time.
Ok, Labour don't help themselves when they shilly-shally and chop and change, make bold proposals only to change their minds and row back on them.
They make themselves easy targets in that respect.
But we must never underestimate the Tory misinformation machine. It extends all the way from the most senior level to the humblest foot-soldier posting leaflets for their nephew or neice in the mildest English county town.
It runs rife through the party from top to bottom. Rotten to the core.
You will notice that I didn't say that any of the political parties are 'squeaky-clean' and that I was referring to regional campaigns.
I've seen good, bad and indifferent behaviour from all the political parties. I don't agree with everything I've seen - or even included - in my own political party's literature.
But round here, I've never seen Labour put forward an aspiration in way that makes it sound anything other than that. Their campaign literature makes a clear distinction between what is an 'ambition' and an actual promise.
The Tories don't do that. Worse, they make no attempt to distinguish fact from fiction, illusion from reality.
I've known Labour take credit for things other political groups have done - including my own - and they've accused us of doing the same elsewhere.
I don't doubt that happens. Across the board.
I have my own issues with Labour but from what I've seen during my involvement with local and regional politics they are very good at trying to explain issues and 'educate' people how the system operates at a local level.
The Conservatives do the complete opposite. They rely on people not knowing how things work and they cynically exploit that.
They have no compunction about putting things in their campaign literature that they know darn well they aren't in a position to 'deliver' and react badly whenever anyone calls them out on it.
In fairness, and in the interests of balance, I have known them act decisively and without fudge when mavericks within their own group made personal attacks on a councillor from another party in their campaign literature.
I applaud that and give credit where it's due.
I think it was @Enoch who wrote somewhere on these boards that his local Green Party had included falsehoods and inaccuracies in their campaign material.
I've not seen the literature wherever he happens to be and can't comment. What I have seen are several regional and general elections during the time I've been involved in local politics and got a feel for each political party's approach.
That doesn't mean I 'despise' individual Conservative councillors or activists. Far from it. I was saddened when some very capable Conservative councillors lost their seats last time and some equally highly capable Labour councillors the same.
This isn't an ad hominem attack on individual Conservative councillors or activists. Far from it.
But it is an uncharacteristically passionate attack on what I see s deliberate attempts to mislead the electorate.
Heck, we've had examples this last week of The Telegraph putting out stories about alleged Labour plans that turn out to have no basis in fact.
The Conservative media has a track record of doing that.
And much as I know you don't want to hear it, the Conservative Party has a track record of putting misleading information in its campaign literature too.
It runs all the way down from the top - remember Boris's Brexit battle-bus? to town and parish council level.
People need to be aware and look into these things for themselves. The Conservatives rely on people not doing so. They exploit and promote ignorance of the political process and cynically manipulate it for their own ends.
Don't believe me? Ask some questions in your own area. Check it out.
As a fellow Liberal I was about to reply to your previous post about lying/misleading with the observation that one of the few things the Lib Dems are actually known for at internet meme level are the hopelessly misleading bar charts they’ve been pumping out in election literature for years….!
‘Only the Lib Dems can beat the Tories/Labour here’
[shows demonstrative bar chart of incumbent MP on 42%, Lib Dems second on 22% but with a bar just shorter than the 42% one, other party third on 21% but with a bar barely detectable to the naked eye]
Yes, and I always refused to include those once I was in a position to influence what we did or didn't include in our literature.
Don't get me started on Lib Dem HQ or regional bodies ...
I was less than impressed by the Party's campaign training programmes which reminded me of evangelism training days from my evangelical days.
'I'd rather have a bad Lib Dem councillor than a good Labour one,' the leader of one session declared.
Well, sorry. I wouldn't. I want a good councillor full stop.
And as for Jo Swinson declaring she'd be the next PM ...
There are aspirations and there are ... well ...
Those Lib Dem bar-charts were bollocks and they knew it. I was under pressure to include them but stood my ground and resisted. For a number of years I had them replaced with bespoke versions that reflected the situation more accurately or which used a similar graphic to illustrate something that could be backed up if questioned.
I'm no great shakes or paragon of virtue but there was no way we were going to publish bollocks on my watch.
What I've not seen Lib Dem leaflets do - nor Labour ones for that matter - is lay out claims to be able to deliver things that are outside the remit of town or borough councils.
I've seen the Tories do that time and time again and cry 'Foul!' when I've called them out on it.
‘Only the Lib Dems can beat the Tories/Labour here’
[shows demonstrative bar chart of incumbent MP on 42%, Lib Dems second on 22% but with a bar just shorter than the 42% one, other party third on 21% but with a bar barely detectable to the naked eye]
This certainly annoys me, especially since as a child in the 1980s I was very impressed by the frustrated John Cleese broadcasts for the Lib/SDP Alliance where he complained about nearly half of all voters saying that they would vote Alliance 'if they thought they had a chance of winning'.
As an aside, the best party literature I've seen - irrespective of political persuasion - are those which are:
- Clearly bespoke and reflect local concerns.
- Set out what differentiates them from other parties without being rude about those other parties.
- Able to set forth aspirations without being unrealistic. 'We aim to ...' not 'We will ...'
Sadly, such literature is few and far between.
The Conservatives are good at campaigning. Here and elsewhere. It diminishes them that they feel the need to bamboozle people to do that.
And yes, the Lib Dems ought to drop those ridiculous bar charts. Complete bollocks.
What tends to happen here (recognising that in Scotland politics is a bit different, but on this there appears to be common ground) is that for local elections a lot of the campaigning is unrelated to local issues - it's about positioning for national elections. Rather than treating local politics as something of inherent importance (and, remember a lot of times whatever election is approaching people will talk about pot holes, bin collections and other local issues) it becomes a pawn in what's seen as the "bigger and more important" game of national politics. It's built into our media approach to reporting local elections (how much airtime is spent after each local election talking about how those results might be reflected in the next general election? why wasn't that time devoted to whether it would improve the fixing of pot holes and bin collections?). And, it's not just the Conservatives who get in on the act, the SNP will campaign in local elections on independence as much as Labour and Conservative will campaign on maintaining the union. The problem is that many politicians and almost the entirety of our media seem to consider local elections as second class, with no actual importance in themselves but as a proxy for national politics.
I think the public and most politicians know that the difference elected councillors can make to potholes, bin collections, or much of anything, is pretty limited (they can sabotage things, obviously, but actual improvement is hard to effect) absent increased funding or removing other responsibilities. Which means influencing national governments that control those things. I think there's a pretty good case to be made that the effect on national politics is greater than any practical difference councillors themselves make.
Yes, although I think a significant proportion of people have no understanding whatsoever of these issues and the Conservatives exploit that. Which is why they have no compunction about putting empty promises and unfounded claims in their campaign literature.
I would be very much in favour of restructuring local government to give councils more autonomy, and to make it more comprehensible and consistent. Whatever the shortcomings of US politics I admire the clarity of the three-tier federal-state-county system with subsidiarity as an over-arching principle.
The last political leaflet I had through my door was for Labour (local elections) and the promises in there were so banal and uninspiring that I'm surprised anyone bothered to vote. But at least they were grounded in reality. They did not propose to replace Bury Market with a local version of Las Vegas.
The only other communication I have received for some time was from the 'English Nationalists'. A bunch of loopy fascists whose priorities include excluding Welsh teams from the English football pyramid. Sweet Lord save us!
As for the Tories, I think the last leaflet I had from them was in May's time. They have almost literally given up.
It must be very tempting to spice up your propaganda with lies that you think people will like. And to play on people's ignorance. I never cease to be amazed, for example, by how many people think Bury Council runs the NHS. Or how many think that Burnham (Greater Manchester Mayor) runs everything down to park benches.
Thing is, costs being as they are, few parties distribute leaflets outside of election time.
The Lib Dems do and it works for us, at a local level at least.
Mind you, I've come across people who think Focus (the Lib Dem leaflet) is a town council initiative, even though we make it clear it isn't, and then there was the bloke who followed me down his front path to request a leaflet when I'd avoided posting it because of a sign on his door requesting no political literature.
When I told him it was Focus, a Lib Dem publication, he said, 'I always read that. It's not political ...'
I've not seem anything in my postbox from any party yet - though I get frequent emails from the Greens (being a member).
My YouTube feed, however, gives me videos by Sir Keir, and also by the candidate for the part of Our Town in which Our Place (the church with which I am associated) is situated.
My current constituency MP (a tory) lives nearby, but there isn't even a poster outside their house. They are AFAIK a *moderate* tory, but, even so, tainted with the toxic legacy of Johnson, Truss, and Sunak.
They therefore really have nothing to offer the electorate, and have probably given up. I may say that our local Council elections last year thoroughly defeated the tories...
Interesting (and somewhat concerning) - my YouTube feed has also given me only Labour videos so far. Which is odd because I bet Labour are not the only ones pushing out YouTube ads. Presumably other people with different viewing histories are being fed solely Reform ads or even worse ones...
Interesting (and somewhat concerning) - my YouTube feed has also given me only Labour videos so far. Which is odd because I bet Labour are not the only ones pushing out YouTube ads. Presumably other people with different viewing histories are being fed solely Reform ads or even worse ones...
Well, yes - I wondered about that (not that I want to see any Reform or Tory videos...).
But surely, if anything is an example of "the algorithm" promoting an echo chamber, preferentially showing one party's election material over another is as blatant as it gets! If YouTube were a broadcaster, surely this would be illegal! Perhaps it is illegal but nothing has been done about it yet?
But surely, if anything is an example of "the algorithm" promoting an echo chamber, preferentially showing one party's election material over another is as blatant as it gets! If YouTube were a broadcaster, surely this would be illegal! Perhaps it is illegal but nothing has been done about it yet?
O quite, though I have no idea as to the legalities involved.
I might have a look on YouTube, and see if I can access a tory video for Our Town. I won't even think of trying to find a Reform video.
I suppose part of the question is the extent to which political parties can pay YouTube to target the audience of their videos, in the way that they can pay FaceBook to promote posts to users who meet some form of criteria they set. If so you may be seeing Labour rather than Conservative content because the algorithm considers you very unlikely to vote Conservative but more likely to vote Labour.
I suppose part of the question is the extent to which political parties can pay YouTube to target the audience of their videos, in the way that they can pay FaceBook to promote posts to users who meet some form of criteria they set. If so you may be seeing Labour rather than Conservative content because the algorithm considers you very unlikely to vote Conservative but more likely to vote Labour.
A tactic used at the time of Brexit. Very effective, as it gets your 'message' to those most likely to like it. In addition, the chances are no one will rebut what you say, as they are already 'believers' who have their prejudices confirmed. This applies even if what you say is hogwash.
I suppose part of the question is the extent to which political parties can pay YouTube to target the audience of their videos, in the way that they can pay FaceBook to promote posts to users who meet some form of criteria they set. If so you may be seeing Labour rather than Conservative content because the algorithm considers you very unlikely to vote Conservative but more likely to vote Labour.
I suppose part of the question is the extent to which political parties can pay YouTube to target the audience of their videos, in the way that they can pay FaceBook to promote posts to users who meet some form of criteria they set. If so you may be seeing Labour rather than Conservative content because the algorithm considers you very unlikely to vote Conservative but more likely to vote Labour.
But that is terrible! That should not be allowed!
It may be true, though. I use YouTube a lot, but never venture into the Book Of Face...
This is not because I hate it per se, but simply because I can't cope with the visual overload of the Book's complex pages...
The last political leaflet I had through my door was for Labour (local elections) and the promises in there were so banal and uninspiring that I'm surprised anyone bothered to vote. But at least they were grounded in reality. They did not propose to replace Bury Market with a local version of Las Vegas.
The only other communication I have received for some time was from the 'English Nationalists'. A bunch of loopy fascists whose priorities include excluding Welsh teams from the English football pyramid. Sweet Lord save us!
As for the Tories, I think the last leaflet I had from them was in May's time. They have almost literally given up.
It must be very tempting to spice up your propaganda with lies that you think people will like. And to play on people's ignorance. I never cease to be amazed, for example, by how many people think Bury Council runs the NHS. Or how many think that Burnham (Greater Manchester Mayor) runs everything down to park benches.
Another thing is, Sighthound, it sounds like whichever party is leafletting your area they ain't going to attract your attention.
Labour put one out that neither makes over-egged promises - moon on a stick, the Elixir of Life - nor plays on people's ignorance of the system '- it rained last Wednesday. That's Andy Burnham's fault!' ' A Bury Market trader lost a £5 note. Why hasn't Andy Burnham reimbursed them out of his own pocket?' - and That's not good enough.
I had a friend who was highly amused by a Lib Dem leaflet in his area - he's Tory but we tolerate each other - which crowed about a mended lamp post.
I can understand his amusement but that's the reality of the situation. Small victories here and there. Potholes. Dog shit. Litter. Park benches.
Some people know that. A lot don't. Our previous town clerk had people ring her complaining about what was happening in Westminster. As though a small town in Cheshire was responsible for that.
Oh, I quite understand the ridiculous pressures and limitations put on local government and the almost complete lack of flexibility to improve the community.
What I am saying is that if I were (for example) a young mother with a three-year-old, or one of those hard-working families doing 12-hour shifts to pay the mortgage and keep the kids in baked beans, I doubt that the message in the leaflets would make me think 'Oh, I must rush to the polling station to vote for that.'
Maybe it's just reality. But it's also why the turnout in my ward was not unadjacent to 29%.
It also explains why some candidates offer some spicy - but wholly impractical - policies. I didn't say I agreed with it, but that I understand it. It must be very tempting if you've a lust to be elected and only a vague conception of the notions of truth and honour.
Comments
She's not. The HoC isn't sitting and there are no serving MPs.
Point taken. You're quite right, of course.
Frankly, I hadn't really noticed that, for the time being, we have no government...
Yes, I wondered if this might be the case. He is a lawyer, after all, and seems to tread carefully - however much this may upset one side or t'other.
Yes, I appreciate that, but there is a sort of general feeling, I think, in England at least, that the so-called government gave up actually governing quite some time ago...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/31/diane-abbott-free-to-stand-for-labour-in-election-says-starmer
It may be that Starmer has announced this sooner than he would have liked, but hopefully it will stand him in good stead, anyway. As I said earlier, I hope Ms Abbott wins again, with an even bigger majority! She deserves it...
Which of Abbott's friends and supporters do you imagine has the clout to get a Murdoch paper to run a fake story? Far, far more likely (and in keeping with previous behaviour) to be Luke Akehurst or one of the other nasty little thugs around Starmer.
This is only odd if you take a strangely naive view of 'the leadership' - which isn't the unitary thing you are making it out to be.
Starmer, or at least those around him, have briefed against Rayner in the past, and remember that back in 2021 he tried to demote her before having to backtrack.
While she isn't on the left, or even soft left, those around Starmer don't really trust her - if only because as she has her own mandate from the membership as deputy leader.
What is clear is that if we take the - now accepted - timeline that the investigation into what Abbott said was concluded in December, then Starmer has been very misleading ever since in implying that she had yet to be cleared and that he was playing no role in her future.
Together with the action against Faiza Shaheen and Lloyd Russell Moyle, the very different fate of Neil Coyle, along with a number of the NEC members being parachuted into safe seats, it is clear that there is a grouping on the right who have decided to take this as an opportunity to boot out people who aren't of their faction.
If you are a Labour supporter this should worry you, the particular faction that is on the ascendant have actually very little politics apart from score settling, and in general hiring people whose two settings are 'leak' and 'plot' doesn't do much for stability.
The truth is that the final decision is with the whip, who of course will only do things in parallel with Starmer. The hope was that DA would slope off into history if technically she retained the whip, but Starmer was left looking rather stupid when she refused. It was then unsatisfactorily left to the whips to officially/unofficial let it be known that DA wouldn't be standing. And it was only pressure and publicity that made any difference.
I fully expect DA to be re-elected and then immediately have the whip revoked. She'll sit with Corbyn on the back row and snipe but it will make no difference to anyone.
.. and that what happened was that a faction who thought they are too clever by half (and possibly fancied the seat) went and leaked the plan to the press.
Apart from anything else; the timeline shows that at the very least Starmer has been misleading the press about the precise status of the investigation, and the extent to which he or his office had any influence on the outcome.
Naive, maybe. But I do not buy either the Machiavellian characterisation of the Labour Party, nor the idea that Starmer and Rayner are constantly at war.
Either way, Abbott will be the Labour candidate if she chooses to be and the campaign moves on.
I was just looking at some of the details around Great British Energy. This is a big, long term policy.
https://www.politico.eu/article/labour-party-energy-company-uk-election-keir-starmer/
It's not true that both parties are the same.
It's not Machiavellian to suggest that parties which are a 'broad church' will contain multiple factions, and that these factions will often be at odds with each other. A few years back Compass put out a 'beginners guide to the Labour Party' podcast featuring this episode on the factions:
https://shows.acast.com/abeginnersguidetothelabourparty/episodes/factions-is-labour-a-broad-church-
It covers how the factions and their associated ginger groups self define and see themselves (with representations from each of them) rather than the usual newspaper characterisation along personality lines.
Whether you like it or not the current NEC (and by implication their chosen candidates - which includes themselves) are dominated by a particular strain of the Labour Right who see things in narrowly factional terms, again; compare the cases of Graham Jones and Neil Coyle with Diane Abbott and Faiza Shaheen. Part of the evidence against the latter were tweets supporting the Green Party made before she even joined Labour:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/faiza-shaheen-dropped-labour-liking-pro-bds-corbyn-and-green-party-posts
Compare and contrast the new PPC for North Durham:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24355642.luke-akehurst-labour-pick-extremist-israel-lobbyist-safe-seat/
Amusingly when asked about his deleted tweets, Akehurst replied (to the Metro):
You can look at a now deleted post from his blog to see where he might land politically:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GOnKjdPW8AAY96q?format=jpg&name=large
Whether they are not the same is rather incidental to efficacy of the policy. GB Energy is an investment arm for the private sector rather than an energy company; it won't sell or produce energy, nor will it own any energy infrastructure. Given the big renewable stations already have a raft of financial incentives they can draw on, it remains to be seen what the impact GBEnergy will have (worst case; content for the Private Eye).
I suspect Mr Knight's decision may well split the right wing vote between himself and any candidate the Tories can come up with in which case this true blue seat may end up with its first ever Labour MP.
Apparently the government thinks its a good idea to encourage overseas electors to register in marginal seats. I agree with them although not for the same reasons
But it could make a rather bigger difference as an ongoing Conservative attack line over the course of the national campaign.
I don't think they've published the full tables yet, but here's the headline seat projection:
LAB: 476 (+280)
CON: 66 (-306)
LDM: 59 (+51)
SNP: 26 (-22)
PLC: 3 (+1)
GRN: 2 (+1)
I am starting to believe...
AFZ
I can honestly say from a local/regional perspective, that I've seen all parties make mistakes or howlers in their campaign literature.
What I don't see, in any of the parties other than the Conservatives are deliberate attempts to mislead.
I really don't know how they have the gall.
I could cite examples of Conservative campaign literature that blatantly promises that they will do things that aren't even within the remit of the town councils or local authorities where they stand. And they know darn well that they can't.
I've seen them send out misleading information designed to catch people out and not look as if it's party-political at all.
I've not seen any of the other political parties do that.
I don't know how they can sleep at night.
'Dishonest' and 'lying' doesn't come anywhere near it.
I tackled a young Tory candidate on the doors several times during the last regional election campaign and called him out for talking and promising complete bollocks.
I pointed out the factual errors and downright falsehoods in his campaign literature and he pretended he was completely unaware of them even though it was obvious he was lying through his teeth.
I'm a reasonable and moderate bloke and the lefties here probably think I'm a 'Yellow Tory' but there's one thing I will never, ever condone from the Conservatives and that's their cynical, entitled and bare-faced exploitation of people's lack of awareness of how local government works.
I despise them for it.
I call 'shame'.
Lying is too mild a word for it.
Look into it, @Telford. You'd be shocked. Lies, lies then more lies.
And we know who is the 'Father of Lies' don't we?
They would push their own Granny under a bus to get elected. Machiavellian isn't a strong enough term.
I'm being serious. It's lying on an industrial scale.
Let me give you an example of Labour lies. They keep demanding to know how the Conservatives intend to pay for the elimination of all national insurance payments. It's not a Conservative proposal. It's just an ambition mentioned by Jeremy Hunt for some time in the future when finances allow for it.
To pretend that it's a current proposal is a big lie.
This will not be near the eventual result but if it is, it would be awful for democracy to have one party so dominant
Care to explain the practical difference between an ambition and a proposal? Is it anything other than trying to get electoral benefit for the former without having to trouble yourself with the practicalities of the matter? If I announce my "ambition" to import cheese from the moon and try to get people to vote for me in the expectation of tasty moon cheese aren't people entitled to ask about the practicalities?
Labour is pretending that it is a proposal for the next 5 years and that just isn't true.
I've seen good, bad and indifferent behaviour from all the political parties. I don't agree with everything I've seen - or even included - in my own political party's literature.
But round here, I've never seen Labour put forward an aspiration in way that makes it sound anything other than that. Their campaign literature makes a clear distinction between what is an 'ambition' and an actual promise.
The Tories don't do that. Worse, they make no attempt to distinguish fact from fiction, illusion from reality.
I've known Labour take credit for things other political groups have done - including my own - and they've accused us of doing the same elsewhere.
I don't doubt that happens. Across the board.
I have my own issues with Labour but from what I've seen during my involvement with local and regional politics they are very good at trying to explain issues and 'educate' people how the system operates at a local level.
The Conservatives do the complete opposite. They rely on people not knowing how things work and they cynically exploit that.
They have no compunction about putting things in their campaign literature that they know darn well they aren't in a position to 'deliver' and react badly whenever anyone calls them out on it.
In fairness, and in the interests of balance, I have known them act decisively and without fudge when mavericks within their own group made personal attacks on a councillor from another party in their campaign literature.
I applaud that and give credit where it's due.
I think it was @Enoch who wrote somewhere on these boards that his local Green Party had included falsehoods and inaccuracies in their campaign material.
I've not seen the literature wherever he happens to be and can't comment. What I have seen are several regional and general elections during the time I've been involved in local politics and got a feel for each political party's approach.
That doesn't mean I 'despise' individual Conservative councillors or activists. Far from it. I was saddened when some very capable Conservative councillors lost their seats last time and some equally highly capable Labour councillors the same.
This isn't an ad hominem attack on individual Conservative councillors or activists. Far from it.
But it is an uncharacteristically passionate attack on what I see s deliberate attempts to mislead the electorate.
Heck, we've had examples this last week of The Telegraph putting out stories about alleged Labour plans that turn out to have no basis in fact.
The Conservative media has a track record of doing that.
And much as I know you don't want to hear it, the Conservative Party has a track record of putting misleading information in its campaign literature too.
It runs all the way down from the top - remember Boris's Brexit battle-bus? to town and parish council level.
People need to be aware and look into these things for themselves. The Conservatives rely on people not doing so. They exploit and promote ignorance of the political process and cynically manipulate it for their own ends.
Don't believe me? Ask some questions in your own area. Check it out.
Source?
The majority of L:abour MPs who appear on tv programmes which I watch.
We once played Wolvernhampton Councillors at a local bowling club. I played against one particular councillor who I knew quite well. On one occasion. He bowled too long and the ball went into the gutter. I bowled to within a few feet of the jack, He bowled again and his bowl again went into the gutter. I dropped my second bowl on the turf and said, " That's 2 for to me". He said, " You didn't try". I replied, " I didn't need to" He said " You're cheating". He then grinned and said, " Never play a politician" He later became an excellent local Labour MP and we were friends.
As a fellow Liberal I was about to reply to your previous post about lying/misleading with the observation that one of the few things the Lib Dems are actually known for at internet meme level are the hopelessly misleading bar charts they’ve been pumping out in election literature for years….!
‘Only the Lib Dems can beat the Tories/Labour here’
[shows demonstrative bar chart of incumbent MP on 42%, Lib Dems second on 22% but with a bar just shorter than the 42% one, other party third on 21% but with a bar barely detectable to the naked eye]
And it's all very heartening and commendable.
No political party has a monopoly on decent people any more than than they have a monopoly on bozos.
That's not the point I'm making here.
A former Parliamentary candidate in my own political party once readily admitted to me that my own, and other, political parties do exactly what the Conservatives do on occasion - put a spin on things, use facts and details selectively, exaggerate and stir up rumours etc.
'The difference is that the Tories do it on an industrial scale,' they concluded.
Heck, I've even known of instances where Labour and Conservative councillors and activists have joined forces to bad-mouth and attempt to undermine Lib Dem candidates.
Politics can be a dirty business and I'm not saying my own party is beyond reproach either.
The Tory lad I mentioned is a decent and well-meaning guy. I'd have him down as sincere and naive rather than wicked.
But he continued to promote factual inaccuracies even after I'd pointed them out. He was speechless for a moment and it was obvious that he'd swallowed the misleading line fed to him by his elders. I'll modify my comments upthread. I'm not sure he entirely believed the bollocks in his election leaflets but am prepared to accept he broadly took them on in good faith to some extent.
My issue isn't with him so much as the cynical manipulators running the Tory campaign.
We've seen Tory spokespeople and the Conservative media put out all manner of misinformation about Labour's plans in recent days.
They do it all the time.
Ok, Labour don't help themselves when they shilly-shally and chop and change, make bold proposals only to change their minds and row back on them.
They make themselves easy targets in that respect.
But we must never underestimate the Tory misinformation machine. It extends all the way from the most senior level to the humblest foot-soldier posting leaflets for their nephew or neice in the mildest English county town.
It runs rife through the party from top to bottom. Rotten to the core.
Yes, and I always refused to include those once I was in a position to influence what we did or didn't include in our literature.
Don't get me started on Lib Dem HQ or regional bodies ...
I was less than impressed by the Party's campaign training programmes which reminded me of evangelism training days from my evangelical days.
'I'd rather have a bad Lib Dem councillor than a good Labour one,' the leader of one session declared.
Well, sorry. I wouldn't. I want a good councillor full stop.
And as for Jo Swinson declaring she'd be the next PM ...
There are aspirations and there are ... well ...
Those Lib Dem bar-charts were bollocks and they knew it. I was under pressure to include them but stood my ground and resisted. For a number of years I had them replaced with bespoke versions that reflected the situation more accurately or which used a similar graphic to illustrate something that could be backed up if questioned.
I'm no great shakes or paragon of virtue but there was no way we were going to publish bollocks on my watch.
What I've not seen Lib Dem leaflets do - nor Labour ones for that matter - is lay out claims to be able to deliver things that are outside the remit of town or borough councils.
I've seen the Tories do that time and time again and cry 'Foul!' when I've called them out on it.
This certainly annoys me, especially since as a child in the 1980s I was very impressed by the frustrated John Cleese broadcasts for the Lib/SDP Alliance where he complained about nearly half of all voters saying that they would vote Alliance 'if they thought they had a chance of winning'.
- Clearly bespoke and reflect local concerns.
- Set out what differentiates them from other parties without being rude about those other parties.
- Able to set forth aspirations without being unrealistic. 'We aim to ...' not 'We will ...'
Sadly, such literature is few and far between.
The Conservatives are good at campaigning. Here and elsewhere. It diminishes them that they feel the need to bamboozle people to do that.
And yes, the Lib Dems ought to drop those ridiculous bar charts. Complete bollocks.
2015, for example: https://conservatives2015.blogspot.com/2015/03/jobs.html
The only other communication I have received for some time was from the 'English Nationalists'. A bunch of loopy fascists whose priorities include excluding Welsh teams from the English football pyramid. Sweet Lord save us!
As for the Tories, I think the last leaflet I had from them was in May's time. They have almost literally given up.
It must be very tempting to spice up your propaganda with lies that you think people will like. And to play on people's ignorance. I never cease to be amazed, for example, by how many people think Bury Council runs the NHS. Or how many think that Burnham (Greater Manchester Mayor) runs everything down to park benches.
The Lib Dems do and it works for us, at a local level at least.
Mind you, I've come across people who think Focus (the Lib Dem leaflet) is a town council initiative, even though we make it clear it isn't, and then there was the bloke who followed me down his front path to request a leaflet when I'd avoided posting it because of a sign on his door requesting no political literature.
When I told him it was Focus, a Lib Dem publication, he said, 'I always read that. It's not political ...'
My YouTube feed, however, gives me videos by Sir Keir, and also by the candidate for the part of Our Town in which Our Place (the church with which I am associated) is situated.
My current constituency MP (a tory) lives nearby, but there isn't even a poster outside their house. They are AFAIK a *moderate* tory, but, even so, tainted with the toxic legacy of Johnson, Truss, and Sunak.
They therefore really have nothing to offer the electorate, and have probably given up. I may say that our local Council elections last year thoroughly defeated the tories...
Well, yes - I wondered about that (not that I want to see any Reform or Tory videos...).
O quite, though I have no idea as to the legalities involved.
I might have a look on YouTube, and see if I can access a tory video for Our Town. I won't even think of trying to find a Reform video.
A tactic used at the time of Brexit. Very effective, as it gets your 'message' to those most likely to like it. In addition, the chances are no one will rebut what you say, as they are already 'believers' who have their prejudices confirmed. This applies even if what you say is hogwash.
But that is terrible! That should not be allowed!
It may be true, though. I use YouTube a lot, but never venture into the Book Of Face...
This is not because I hate it per se, but simply because I can't cope with the visual overload of the Book's complex pages...
Another thing is, Sighthound, it sounds like whichever party is leafletting your area they ain't going to attract your attention.
Labour put one out that neither makes over-egged promises - moon on a stick, the Elixir of Life - nor plays on people's ignorance of the system '- it rained last Wednesday. That's Andy Burnham's fault!' ' A Bury Market trader lost a £5 note. Why hasn't Andy Burnham reimbursed them out of his own pocket?' - and That's not good enough.
I had a friend who was highly amused by a Lib Dem leaflet in his area - he's Tory but we tolerate each other - which crowed about a mended lamp post.
I can understand his amusement but that's the reality of the situation. Small victories here and there. Potholes. Dog shit. Litter. Park benches.
Some people know that. A lot don't. Our previous town clerk had people ring her complaining about what was happening in Westminster. As though a small town in Cheshire was responsible for that.
What I am saying is that if I were (for example) a young mother with a three-year-old, or one of those hard-working families doing 12-hour shifts to pay the mortgage and keep the kids in baked beans, I doubt that the message in the leaflets would make me think 'Oh, I must rush to the polling station to vote for that.'
Maybe it's just reality. But it's also why the turnout in my ward was not unadjacent to 29%.
It also explains why some candidates offer some spicy - but wholly impractical - policies. I didn't say I agreed with it, but that I understand it. It must be very tempting if you've a lust to be elected and only a vague conception of the notions of truth and honour.