General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

robinph

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

does anybody know where JRM is hiding?

i haven't seen or heard from him since he started blaming the victims of Grenfell for heeding LFB advice.

He popped up on Twitter last week in a video infront of some old stone circle, like stone henge, and quoted some line from Adge Cutter of The Wurzels (I've got a brand new combine harvester) fame as a reason that we need to Get Brexit Done.

The local BBC News has tried and failed to get him on for a chat.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

You're fully entitled to that view.

I am intimately aware of what the CU/SM is now, and was 3.5-years ago, and I would still opt to Brexit.

In fact, the more I discovered about the CU/SM, the more I wanted to Brexit.
Far from "destroying the UK", the UK has returned to the nation-state which is the same as what Canada is, what Singapore is, what Japan is, and what New Zealand is.

Yet they are not "destroyed countries" by virtue of being a "nation-state".

Once you take hyperbole out of the equation and hysteria out of the argument, you find that the UK is not abandoning Europe, but simply pursuing her global ambitions on the world stage.

That's the vision that I and other Brexiteers hold to, no matter how many times people call us stupid, ill-informed, imperialist-nostalgia seeking, and generally racist and in denial about that fact.

Seeing as you're an Irish immigrant in the UK I doubt anyone is calling you "imperialist-nostalgia seeking", that would be silly.

Can you give us some specifics on what you didn't like about the customs union and single market that inspired you to vote for brexit? Since we're taking hyperbole and hysteria out of the equation, after all. I would really love for you to explain what you perceive the benefits of Brexit to be in real, tangible terms, rather than vague, vacuous statements.

quokula

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50726500


Investigation into online campaign ads found that 88% of Conservative ads were misleading, hundreds of Lib Dem ads included unverified graphs, and they couldn’t find a single misleading ad from The Labour Party.

Pretty interesting findings, lines up with my own experience.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50726500


Investigation into online campaign ads found that 88% of Conservative ads were misleading, hundreds of Lib Dem ads included unverified graphs, and they couldn’t find a single misleading ad from The Labour Party.

Pretty interesting findings, lines up with my own experience.

so you ignored the lie on Jeremy Corbyn's twitter account that was retweeted 17,000 times then?

They are all at it, labour just use their on line army so they aren't scrutinised.

Joe_ Public

"They're all at it."

I'm going to label this the Laura Kuennsberg defence where Boris can lie with impunity, but sure Corbyn is just as bad because something something about the queens speech apparently.

quokula

Aegir wrote: »

so you ignored the lie on Jeremy Corbyn's twitter account that was retweeted 17,000 times then?

They are all at it, labour just use their on line army so they aren't scrutinised.

The independent fact checker found 88% of Tory ads misleading and 0% of Labour ads.

Conclusion: they’re all at it.

Jeremy Corbyn’s tweets are not ads. And it was categorised as “disputed” not misleading. He said that a deal with Trump could cost the NHS money through more expensive drugs. And it could.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

"They're all at it."

I'm going to label this the Laura Kuennsberg defence where Boris can lie with impunity, but sure Corbyn is just as bad because something something about the queens speech apparently.

No, this is called a fair appraisal of political parties.

Why take out a misleading advert when you’ve got hundreds of thousands of online activists who will do it for you.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

Jeremy Corbyn’s tweets are not ads. And it was categorised as “disputed” not misleading. He said that a deal with Trump could cost the NHS money through more expensive drugs. And it could.

So a leader can lie through his teeth on twitter and that is ok with you, but pay for an ad on Facebook and it is terrible.

Corbyinistas at their finest.

quokula

Aegir wrote: »

No, this is called a fair appraisal of political parties.

Why take out a misleading advert when you’ve got hundreds of thousands of online activists who will do it for you.

Why care about facts when you can make up your own

Joe_ Public

Aegir wrote: »

No, this is called a fair appraisal of political parties.

Why take out a misleading advert when you’ve got hundreds of thousands of online activists who will do it for you.

Fair appraisal from leading independent factchecker.

88% of tory facebook ads untruthful. But...but...corbyn...but....but...they're all at it. Top of the poll for straw clutching whataboutery to be fair.

quokula

Aegir wrote: »

So a leader can lie through his teeth on twitter and that is ok with you, but pay for an ad on Facebook and it is terrible.

Corbyinistas at their finest.

You’re trying to equate a leader saying what he believes (which the other side disputes but plenty of evidence says it could be true, and he specifically used the word “could”) on a platform where only people who chose to follow him can see it, with the industrial scale use of targeted ads designed specifically to spread lies in order to win votes dishonestly.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

You’re trying to equate a leader saying what he believes (which the other side disputes but plenty of evidence says it could be true, and he specifically used the word “could”) on a platform where only people who chose to follow him can see it, with the industrial scale use of targeted ads designed specifically to spread lies in order to win votes dishonestly.

What evidence?

I’ve seen the Corbyn tweet appear on both my Facebook and Instagram feed from Labour supporters.

Different MO, same objective.

There are none so blind...,,

Zubeneschamali

splinter65 wrote: »

People know they can’t work 1 day less and still get paid the same.

People think they know that, but they are wrong.

There have been huge gains in productivity over tha past 30 years, and ordinary workers have seen very little of it. The 1%ers have pocketed it - leaving ordinary workers working just as long for similar money.

hometruths

quokula wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50726500


Investigation into online campaign ads found that 88% of Conservative ads were misleading, hundreds of Lib Dem ads included unverified graphs, and they couldn’t find a single misleading ad from The Labour Party.

Pretty interesting findings, lines up with my own experience.

Did anyone actually read the Report from the Coalition for Reform in Political Advertising linked in the article?

Hard to avoid the conclusion from that report: they’re all at it!

Including the Labour Facebook ad claiming “Boris Johnson is a Russian agent!”

quokula

schmittel wrote: »

Did anyone actually read the Report from the Coalition for Reform in Political Advertising linked in the article?

Hard to avoid the conclusion from that report: they’re all at it!

Including the Labour Facebook ad claiming “Boris Johnson is a Russian agent!”

So to be clear the bbc article quoted two different things. One was the report you cite which was an anecdotal “here’s some dodgy ads we found from each party” kind of report. Which did find 4 disputable Labour ads (and many more from other parties)

The second was an actual full analysis of every single ad posted on facebook (thousands of different ads) and found 88% from the conservatives were misleading and none from Labour were.

I think a key difference is use of the term “disputed” (eg the example that Boris could put up medicine prices based on the fact that he wants a trade deal with the US and this is something the US wants and think is on the table, but we don’t know for sure) in one report and the term “misleading” in the other (eg the Tory ad staying that Corbyn wants to allow abortions at 8 and a half months based on nothing whatsoever) - which have different burdens of proof.

hometruths

quokula wrote: »

So to be clear the bbc article quoted two different things. One was the report you cite which was an anecdotal “here’s some dodgy ads we found from each party” kind of report. Which did find 4 disputable Labour ads (and many more from other parties)

The second was an actual full analysis of every single ad posted on facebook (thousands of different ads) and found 88% from the conservatives were misleading and none from Labour were.

I think a key difference is use of the term “disputed” (eg the example that Boris could put up medicine prices based on the fact that he wants a trade deal with the US and this is something the US wants and think is on the table, but we don’t know for sure) in one report and the term “misleading” in the other (eg the Tory ad staying that Corbyn wants to allow abortions at 8 and a half months based on nothing whatsoever) - which have different burdens of proof.

Are you saying that the claim Boris Johnson is a Russian agent is disputed, but we don't know for sure and therefore it cannot be considered misleading?

Hence the second analysis was correct to exclude it from their study?

schmittel

schmittel wrote: »

Are you saying that the claim Boris Johnson is a Russian agent is disputed, but we don't know for sure and therefore it cannot be considered misleading?

Hence the second analysis was correct to exclude it from their study?

We seriously need a Russian conspiracy equivalent of Godwin's Law.

As soon as Russian conspiracy is brought up, you've lost the argument - or something equivalent to that.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We seriously need a Russian conspiracy equivalent of Godwin's Law.

As soon as Russian conspiracy is brought up, you've lost the argument - or something equivalent to that.

Why not release the report pre election if theres nothing to see?

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

We seriously need a Russian conspiracy equivalent of Godwin's Law.

As soon as Russian conspiracy is brought up, you've lost the argument - or something equivalent to that.

Something equivalent like calling Corbyn a Marxist?

Quid pro quo - I'd agree to that.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

Are you saying that the claim Boris Johnson is a Russian agent is disputed, but we don't know for sure and therefore it cannot be considered misleading?

Hence the second analysis was correct to exclude it from their study?

I dont think anybodys going to defend that ad. Its just stupid and self defeating.

But i think the issue is one of scale here. That labour ad cited seems to come from a local source which is not to excuse it, but with the factcheck.uk and starmer video edit, they were coming right from tory hq, sanctioned from the top. People can counter with vague talk of thousands of shadowy labour activists operating online, but all i can see to go on are those independent sites mentioned above which suggest to me the scale of the impropriety is heavily weighted on one side. I am open to being proven wrong on that.

quokula

schmittel wrote: »

Are you saying that the claim Boris Johnson is a Russian agent is disputed, but we don't know for sure and therefore it cannot be considered misleading?

Hence the second analysis was correct to exclude it from their study?

Nope that’s the difference between a full and thorough study and a PDF of anecdotal evidence. That’s not a slight against the authors by the way - they’re totally open in the first paragraph that they’re not experts or regulators and simply people campaigning for more truth in political ads.

I dug a bit and found that video, it’s on a Facebook page called “Labour Party Bramley and Stanningley Public”, which is not the actual page for that local Labour Party which is simply called “Labour Party Bramley and Stanningley” - it does appear the page was formerly an affiliated Labour page in a previous election for a different candidate at the time and the guy who ran it kept it running, but it is not affiliated now. The official page has shared posts from that page also, but it didn’t share the Russian asset one.

It is one video posted by one guy which has had *drumroll* 16 views. That’s 16, not 16 thousand. One of those views was me. Another was the writer of that article. The video has never been a paid for ad (something which you can check on Facebook easily enough) - I imagine it made it into the article because the authors were desperately trying to find some content from Labour so that they wouldn’t be accused of bias.


Again, the BBC article was completely clear that a separate in depth analysis of thousands of ads found that 88% of the Conservative’s were misleading and 0% of Labour’s were.

Some random guy making the assumptions from Johnson covering up the Russian investigation, or Corbyn tweeting his belief, which is shared by many, that a US trade deal could lead to higher drug prices does not change the above central fact, as much as right wingers would like to push a false equivalence.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not release the report pre election if theres nothing to see?

I'm in favour of having the report released.

I'm making the wider point that this attitude of "the Russians" are behind almost every iniquity known to man is becoming tiresome.

Yes, they're a rogue nation who do politically interfere, and whose tentacles have penetrated through the ground of many a nation-state, but these almost-hysterical conspiratorial references to Russia as if they are some undefeatable Bond villian has gone a little too far.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm in favour of having the report released.

I'm making the wider point that this attitude of "the Russians" are behind almost every iniquity known to man is becoming tiresome.

Yes, they're a rogue nation who do politically interfere, and whose tentacles have penetrated through the ground of many a nation-state, but these almost-hysterical conspiratorial references to Russia as if they are some undefeatable Bond villian has gone a little too far.

Interesting take. So you accept that the Russians interfered with the Brexit referendum to destabilise the Uk but, rather than think this is evidence that Brexit is bad, it can be shrugged off because they are a highly sophisticated but boring threat to world stability, rather than being an exciting fictional villain?

Now, as much as that is a complete non sequitor, no one on this thread has accused the Russians of being behind every iniquity nor of being an unbeatable Bond villian, they have accused Russia of very boring but very real and sustained interference and misinformation surrounding Brexit.

Now, you accept that the Russians did interfere in this very grounded and non-supervillian, but still very much illegal information warfare, so what is your response to it?

CelticRambler

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Now, you accept that the Russians did interfere in this very grounded and non-supervillian, but still very much illegal information warfare, so what is your response to it?

Vote Johnson and Get Brexit Done!

Because Corbyn.

At least I think that's how a Tory mind works. All other neural circuits have been disengaged. :rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm in favour of having the report released.

I'm making the wider point that this attitude of "the Russians" are behind almost every iniquity known to man is becoming tiresome.

Yes, they're a rogue nation who do politically interfere, and whose tentacles have penetrated through the ground of many a nation-state, but these almost-hysterical conspiratorial references to Russia as if they are some undefeatable Bond villian has gone a little too far.

Nothing has been proven, NOR disproven. Which is why it's ridiculous that that report was shelved.

As for it being tiresome.... It's a pretty big deal, and not the sort of thing that can be dealt with in a day or two.

And also, if you think that's tiresome, wait til the trade talks begin with the EU and UK!

sid waddell

Liverpool supporters in Salzburg were making it very clear who they want to win on Thursday. :pac:

More chance of Everton winning the league this season than Liverpool returning a Tory MP.

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I dont think anybodys going to defend that ad. Its just stupid and self defeating.

But i think the issue is one of scale here. That labour ad cited seems to come from a local source which is not to excuse it, but with the factcheck.uk and starmer video edit, they were coming right from tory hq, sanctioned from the top. People can counter with vague talk of thousands of shadowy labour activists operating online, but all i can see to go on are those independent sites mentioned above which suggest to me the scale of the impropriety is heavily weighted on one side. I am open to being proven wrong on that.

I agree with your first point, that's why I was checking if quokula actually was trying to defend it, I was a bit confused!

And I agree with your second point, that in terms of actual Tory HQ misleading ads, they seem to be outgunning the opposition.

But I find the idea that 0% of Labour online ads are misleading a little difficult to believe, which is why I would be pretty skeptical of any outfit which claims to have conducted serious analysis that proved this fact.

This skepticism is why I clicked on the BBC link, read the article and then subsequently the links to both of the sources referenced there, and read those.

Having done that I smell a rat with the supposedly in depth analysis that supposedly concluded 0% of Labour's online ads are misleading.

I think if not quite fake news, it is at best misleading news.

hometruths

quokula wrote: »

Again, the BBC article was completely clear that a separate in depth analysis of thousands of ads found that 88% of the Conservative’s were misleading and 0% of Labour’s were.

I think if you genuinely believe 0% of Labour's ads are misleading then you're a victim of the oft derided echo chambers and confirmation bias that fake/misleading news preys on.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

I agree with your first point, that's why I was checking if quokula actually was trying to defend it, I was a bit confused!

And I agree with your second point, that in terms of actual Tory HQ misleading ads, they seem to be outgunning the opposition.

But I find the idea that 0% of Labour online ads are misleading a little difficult to believe, which is why I would be pretty skeptical of any outfit which claims to have conducted serious analysis that proved this fact.

This skepticism is why I clicked on the BBC link, read the article and then subsequently the links to both of the sources referenced there, and read those.

Having done that I smell a rat with the supposedly in depth analysis that supposedly concluded 0% of Labour's online ads are misleading.

I think if not quite fake news, it is at best misleading news.

I'd say that's fair enough. I'm no expert on facebook or other social media stuff so i wouldnt be disputing your take on that at all.

I would only observe that even without revealing the labour figure, the 88% tory figure on its own is quite sobering. Unless thats in dispute too. All i can say is most of the big stuff that has come to my attention via being exposed in the media or other outlets has been perpetrated by the conservatives. Not all, but most of it. And recall vote leave, which broke electoral law in 2016, is now virtually driving entire online tory campaign. Guilt by association? I would think so.

So really, unless i can be pointed to clear evidence of widespread labour online shenanigans, I can only conclude the weight of available evidence lies on the other side and the instinctive response of "sure, they're all at it" doesnt quite cut it for me at this point.

quokula

schmittel wrote: »

I agree with your first point, that's why I was checking if quokula actually was trying to defend it, I was a bit confused!

And I agree with your second point, that in terms of actual Tory HQ misleading ads, they seem to be outgunning the opposition.

But I find the idea that 0% of Labour online ads are misleading a little difficult to believe, which is why I would be pretty skeptical of any outfit which claims to have conducted serious analysis that proved this fact.

This skepticism is why I clicked on the BBC link, read the article and then subsequently the links to both of the sources referenced there, and read those.

Having done that I smell a rat with the supposedly in depth analysis that supposedly concluded 0% of Labour's online ads are misleading.

I think if not quite fake news, it is at best misleading news.

I wasn’t defending the Russian Asset post, just pointing out it was neither an ad nor did it come directly from Labour.

This is the source of the data that the BBC quoted.

https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/thousands-of-misleading-conservative-ads-side-step-scrutiny-thanks-to-facebook-policy/

The BBC wouldn’t be quoting something like this in an article during the election if they didn’t believe it was credible. It’s not a Laura Kuennsberg tweet fed to her by a Tory source.

The raw numbers are in there, using the Facebook API to get a full dump of all ads by all parties and cross checking their claims with Full Fact.

There were thousands of misleading ads from the Tories across countless themes, a significant number from the Lib Dem’s, all of which were of the Lib Dem signature dodgy bar chart only we can win here so tactically vote for us variety, and no examples of misleading ads from Labour.

They did find one Labour ad which Full Fact deemed not credible - a Labour aspiration they considered it would be very unlikely to achieve, but not outright misleading like the verdict on other ads. And it was one singular ad, compared to thousands.