FPTP is an absolute abomination of democratic systems only comparable to the electoral college in USA.
69 items?!
This is where the phrase āFalsehood flies and the truth comes limping after itā seems apt. I heard someone say that Fake News is 5x more likely to be shared on social media than genuine news.
I donāt have the time to go through 69 things (thatās kind of the point of āGish Gallopingā, isnāt it?), but many of those claims I know to be either untrue or exaggerated. Which means Iām dismissive/skeptical about the ones I donāt know about.
However, most people will read that and recall parts of these issues and assume that such an extensive list is evidence of a lot of research so must be true. Theyāre very unlikely to dig deeper into any of these claims (for example are quotes accurate and not taken out of context) thereās simply too many so they wonāt even bother to begin!
For the record, Iām not defending the government. Not at all. I just hate fake news. All fake news.
There is therefore a certain amount of irony to Mascotās postā¦
I agree we need a more robust system to tackle electoral fraud and the danger to democracy posed by the spread of disinformation.
Just like that Facebook post.
1 Like
Iām not sure democratic reform is a big enough plank to build an offer around at this time. You need enough people to believe things need fixing, and I donāt see that being the case at the moment. Instead it would be used to argue that the opposition is seeking to re-open old battles, taking away from where focus should be going on now.
2 Likes
Agreed. I think you need to offer things that will either improve their lives or fix something that they see as wrong. Most people can feel it and sense something is wrong but thatās as far as it goes.
How you convince people that what you say is wrong is actually a problem in the first place? Brexit is a prime example of this where views are completely entrenched. And to top it all the whole debate is often awash with @Kopstarās fake news making sifting through the BS nigh on impossible. We all remember trying to argue that allowing US food standards into the UK was not a good idea. But you could not convince that person arguing for it at all. Despute the simple logic of it.
That for me is where the challenge lies. People need to physically see the damage done by poor government policy. The fake news and disinformation then needs to be removed . And of course they need a viable alternative.
1 Like
Tbf, only some of the fake news is mine.
1 Like
Ok Iāll give you that one 
Well, thatās the problem in a nutshell.
Iād build an offer around democratic reform, focussing on the electoral system (FPTP is batshit), making it much harder for MPs to take second jobs and side earnings, squeezing corruption in parliament, and addressing the electoral fraud of Politicians doing the complete opposite of their manifesto pledges once in power. Iād regulate the fuck out of the press and abolish the Lordās in favour of an elected second chamber.
Iād do these things because I think our democracy is in extreme peril. And Iād be up against some Born to Rule Eton cunt whoād promise to āMake Britain Great Againā and Iād get utterly crushed.
4 Likes
You forgot the Daily Mail looking through your browsing history and listening to your phone calls
I canāt be arsed to read it so itās fake news?
Not what I said. I read all 69 points. Can I be arsed to delve into all 69 points to verify whether theyāre true? No. There were enough in there that I already know are either untrue or distortions (typical fake news) that Iām not to going to waste my time when the chances are that the rest of the points havenāt been objectively presented either.
Itās worth a read simply to remember all the cock ups.
I would say 80-90% accurate. 10-20% more debatable. Not sure I would describe as lies but perhaps a partial picture.
1 Like
Which ones did you spot were untrue?
Iām not going to go through the whole 69 because Iāve got better things to do but of the first 15 points,
1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 (disingenuous), 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are either untrue, distortions or baseless assertion. I mean, come on.
I disagree with you on that.
The first clutch arenāt disingenuous. Heās being loose with the wording for comedic effect. But the spirit is true - May was ousted over her failure to get a deal which was basically impossible, Johnson then forced his deal through parliament without scrutiny, withdrawing the whip from 21 Tories who opposed this. He then fought and won an election on the basis that his deal was brilliant and ready to go, then ādiscoveredā his deal wasnāt as brilliant as heād promised, so forced through parliament a bill to allow the UK to break international law to renege on it.
I think his version is broadly right.
As for the second batch, number 9 is true. Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May all spoke out against the UK breaking international law and itās treaty agreements. And I know the police minister isnāt literally called that, but you know what he means.
2 Likes
I wouldnāt characterise it in quite the same way.
I would say that it is pro-labour/anti Brexit perspective of the events that have occurred. Itās opinion based interpretation of events rather than factual list.
Having said that, I have heard the Johnson, Hancock, Gove versions of events for many of these which are less than compelling (or even consistent).
If I am honest even as someone with a strong political interest, I donāt know what the Tories actually want from Brexit anymore.
Boarder in Irish sea or in Ireland
Hard Brexit or a free trade agreement
Bluffing the EU or true intent to rip up the WA
As for Covid response itās anyoneās guess the relative weight of intent, incompetence, croynesism, corruption or bad luck. But that in itself highlights the failure of transparency and failure to take responsibility.
Iām only saying #8 is disingenuous all the others are either untrue, distortions or baseless assertions. Thatās problems with 12 out of the first 15 (80%).
Playing āloose with the wording for comedic effectā doesnāt exactly fill me with confidence that this assessment is objective (itās not, not even close).
As youāve picked out #9, not all the former PMs spoke out about the IMB. Certainly Cameron didnāt go as far as saying what heās reported to have said (if you watch the full interview - but then a clipped video that presents a misleading picture is canon for practitioners of disinformation, on all sides). Iām also not simply taking issue with people being described as holding made up positions but more so with the attempt to attribute things to them which arenāt true/accurate.
@Kopstar I hope you have time to point out the inaccuracies in that list properly at some point, as Iām largely lost, however I very much appreciate that it would be time consuming and probably not worth it for you, especially as this is a footy forum to escape the real madness.
I donāt trust the government one bit given how much of a shambles two of the most important things that they have had to deal with have gone down (Brexit and Covid). If there are lies in that 69, then knowing the truths would really benefit me, and maybe others.
1 Like
[quote=āKopstar, post:117, topic:351, full:trueā]
Playing āloose with the wording for comedic effectā doesnāt exactly fill me with confidence that this assessment is objective (itās not, not even close).[/quote]
The writer is clearly not an impartial journalist, heās a left wing blogger/social media commentator using humour and presenting a satirical viewpoint. Thatās allowed, and I think youāre being a bit unrealistic to criticise him for not being 100% accurate to the letter when he is broadly right in the points he makes. Like with 9.
Cameron definitely spoke out against Johnsonās plan. Did he go as far as Major or Blair? No of course not. But he did say he had misgivings about Johnsonās course of action. To be honest, itās surprising that Victorian Moon Faced twat put his head above the parapet at all.
1 Like
Text without context is pretext.
1 Like
An opportunity to fund more private wealth. When you break it down to itās most fundamental level
I honestly donāt think it is any more that that. Whether itās Rees-Mogg avoiding a tax bill, further opening London to Russian āenterpriseā or yet more opportunities to provide services by private companies I think that is simply what it has been and is nothing more than that.
That said Iām certainly open to reading the thoughts of any of the main protagonists that drove the whole Brexit thing on the basis that they honestly believed it was the right thing for the UK rather than personal gain.
He has a second edition of his book to sell?
1 Like