Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[dps]

Obviously the far more serious problem would be if Charles was a charismatic genius to go along with his elite education and people would actually prefer him running the country than Boris Johnson.

I don't think someone needs to be a charismatic genius to be preferred over Johnson.  I mean, I'm not British, but I think I'd rather have the guy that drives the truck that picks up our trash run our country to having Johnson run it.  Of course, I'd probably prefer that driver over Trump as well.

[celedhring]

Obviously the far more serious problem would be if Charles was a charismatic genius to go along with his elite education and people would actually prefer him running the country than Boris Johnson.

I don't think someone needs to be a charismatic genius to be preferred over Johnson.  I mean, I'm not British, but I think I'd rather have the guy that drives the truck that picks up our trash run our country to having Johnson run it.  Of course, I'd probably prefer that driver over Trump as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YihiSqO4jnA

[Josquius]

If you're even remotely considering voting tory then please get yourself back into the sea.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-fake-labour-manifesto-website-fact-check-general-election-a9212076.html

They really have gone full trump and they're not even trying to pretend otherwise. They know they can get away with anything and just swallow the few thousands in fines they'll recieve months down the line.

[Agelastus]

If you're even remotely considering voting tory then please get yourself back into the sea.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-fake-labour-manifesto-website-fact-check-general-election-a9212076.html

They really have gone full trump and they're not even trying to pretend otherwise. They know they can get away with anything and just swallow the few thousands in fines they'll recieve months down the line.

So has the very visible line on the website that says "a website by the Conservative Party" been added since the fuss started or was it there all along?

[Note: it's the second thing you see reading down.]

Probably there all along given that the Guardian story seems to be the only one that uses the image from the Twitter post instead of the website.

-------------------------

Now, I will say you have a point about the temporary rebranding of the account to Fact Check UK though. That was going a bit too far, even if it was just for the duration of the debate.

[garbon]

I don't honestly get, Mensa, how you could think the conservatives putting together a fake website even with a disclaimer on it is an upstanding thing.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. I think there's loads of reasons to hate on the Tories. This is ain't it.

But agree the debate factcheck thing is totally different.

[Josquius]

Then there's the edited videos...

[Sheilbh]

Sure. But of all the multitude of reasons not to vote for them I think that's still fairly low down on the list.

It might have an effect against them though because it plays into Johnson's untrustworthiness.

[Josquius]

Sure. But of all the multitude of reasons not to vote for them I think that's still fairly low down on the list.

It might have an effect against them though because it plays into Johnson's untrustworthiness.

Sure.
To me the whole "fuck the poor" thing is enough.
But others see the tory desire to salt the earth as a good thing.
This latest behaviour is showing that even beyond policy they're despicable.

[Agelastus]

I don't honestly get, Mensa, how you could think the conservatives putting together a fake website even with a disclaimer on it is an upstanding thing.

I don't honestly get, unique Languish smiley guy*, how you think the website could be described as fake given the clear labelling of it and its purpose - even the twitter message about it came from an official Conservative account. It does not claim to reproduce the Labour manifesto but very obviously mounts an attack on it. It's an attack leaflet in internet form.

Now, the fact that Labour were negligent enough not to ensure they had purchased at least the most obvious "labourmanifesto" combinations for the .com and .co.uk domains may be worthy of discussion. It's not as if something similar didn't happen a few months ago to the Brexit party before the Euro elections.

I don't recall anyone on Languish objecting to that "hijack" of an URL at the time either.

Even my boss made sure he bought up the most likely .co.uk and .com variations of his latest venture to make sure competitors didn't grab them.

---------------------------------------------------

As for the Google side of it where the Tories paid to have it promoted? Companies do exactly the same thing and for equally morally dubious reasons all the time. I'd ban the practise of paying for being promoted on search engines completely as I feel they have a responsibility to be neutral and use factors such as number of hits or quality of reviews etc. to order sites they display.

That's not going to happen any time soon, though.

----------------------------------------------------

The Guardian in particular are making hay of this as part of their own agenda - it was very noticeable that of the stories I looked at yesterday to try and see if the website had been changed since launch only the Guardian's story used the image from the Twitter message. Even the most Anti-Tory of the other stories were displaying the website image that clearly showed the very visible disclaimer.


*I need to think up a catchier version of this.

Yeah. I think there's loads of reasons to hate on the Tories. This is ain't it.

But agree the debate factcheck thing is totally different.

While I would obviously disagree with you concerning the Tories, as I reserve my "hate" for Labour and its disastrous history with our economy even discounting the current disaster of a manifesto, you are quite correct. I hope the Tories make sure they have bought up the necessary domains as the tactic is quite likely to be used against them at a subsequent election if they haven't or if we don't get new rules as a kneejerk reaction.

But I will say it again - the factcheck thing, short as it was, is not something that should have been done.

I see that Johnson's pulled out of a Channel 4 debate - what do you think of this?

It could be that he is "running scared" I suppose given the apparent reaction to the last debate among undecided voters (59% Corbyn/41% Johnson.) On the other hand he has apparently cancelled some hustings as well so he may just be ill and trying to hide it.

[Tamas]

Preferring the Tories in the past is one thing.

But how can anyone take a cursory look at Johnson and his cabinet and think "yes, these people are the best choice to manage the country for the next five years"?

[garbon]

I don't honestly get, unique Languish smiley guy*, how you think the website could be described as fake given the clear labelling of it and its purpose - even the twitter message about it came from an official Conservative account. It does not claim to reproduce the Labour manifesto but very obviously mounts an attack on it. It's an attack leaflet in internet form.

Now, the fact that Labour were negligent enough not to ensure they had purchased at least the most obvious "labourmanifesto" combinations for the .com and .co.uk domains may be worthy of discussion. It's not as if something similar didn't happen a few months ago to the Brexit party before the Euro elections.

I don't recall anyone on Languish objecting to that "hijack" of an URL at the time either.

Even my boss made sure he bought up the most likely .co.uk and .com variations of his latest venture to make sure competitors didn't grab them.

---------------------------------------------------

As for the Google side of it where the Tories paid to have it promoted? Companies do exactly the same thing and for equally morally dubious reasons all the time. I'd ban the practise of paying for being promoted on search engines completely as I feel they have a responsibility to be neutral and use factors such as number of hits or quality of reviews etc. to order sites they display.

That's not going to happen any time soon, though.

----------------------------------------------------

The Guardian in particular are making hay of this as part of their own agenda - it was very noticeable that of the stories I looked at yesterday to try and see if the website had been changed since launch only the Guardian's story used the image from the Twitter message. Even the most Anti-Tory of the other stories were displaying the website image that clearly showed the very visible disclaimer.

Because it is shady and underhanded? You have people who are searching for information about what Labour is doing and instead being given a very biased Conservative take on the information. I agree that it is clear early on from looking at any of the content that Labour didn't create it - but why even bother? It feels like the kind of rogue thing a PAC would do in my country.

Also, why do you keep banging on about the guardian's take? Unless, I'm mistaken the only new source linked thus far is the independent.

[Agelastus]

Preferring the Tories in the past is one thing.

But how can anyone take a cursory look at Johnson and his cabinet and think "yes, these people are the best choice to manage the country for the next five years"?

When the alternative is Corbyn, Swinson and, to an extent, Sturgeon (who if she wasn't a Scottish Nationalist I would actually have a great deal of time for; she strikes me as a person of some substance despite her political leanings, something that is sadly lacking in the leadership of most parties these days)?

There's a major difference between "least worst" and "best"; I think you'll find a large number of voters in this election feel the same way.

Besides, I don't consider Johnson to be especially dishonest compared to the average British politician - a minority opinion on this site I am well aware. However I can recall the tone of his articles for the Telegraph in the years prior to the Referendum on EU membership so I was not surprised when he backed Leave, nor did I consider it especially opportunist (as I thought Leave would lose.)

Now, some of his colleagues in his Cabinet should not be there - but again, I point you at the people around Corbyn.

[garbon]

Now, some of his colleagues in his Cabinet should not be there - but again, I point you at the people around Corbyn.

Diane Abbott is infinitely better than Priti Patel.

[Agelastus]

Because it is shady and underhanded? You have people who are searching for information about what Labour is doing and instead being given a very biased Conservative take on the information. I agree that it is clear early on from looking at any of the content that Labour didn't create it - but why even bother? It feels like the kind of rogue thing a PAC would do in my country.

The website itself is not particularly shady and underhanded - even if I may once have thought that I was educated in appropriateness earlier this year when essentially the same thing happened to the Brexit Party. I think it reflects much more badly on both the Brexit Party and Labour that they were so stupid as to leave the opportunity open.

Regarding the Twitter message? It came from an official Conservative account so is not underhanded at all regardless of the content - in essence it is no more than an attack ad.

Regarding the Google side, the boosting of the search ranking/sponsorship - well, as I said before here I agree with you, but that is because I consider all such boosting shady and underhanded. So I am not going to especially condemn the Conservative Party for doing something business and others do regularly - including, I am sure, other groups with political agendas.

As for whether it is something a rogue PAC would do? Well, you have far more experience with their tactics than I do so I will reserve comment there.

Also, why do you keep banging on about the guardian's take? Unless, I'm mistaken the only new source linked thus far is the independent.

I visited the offending website after reading the Independent's take on it - then I googled the story because I wanted to see if the website had been changed since it was launched given the clear notice that this was a Conservative site as soon as it loaded.

Other than national or local papers and news-sites (for example, the Scottish Herald) the two national dailies on the first page were the Independent and the Guardian. So I looked at the Guardian's take and saw the image they were using, that being of the Twitter message. Which didn't help me at all with what I was looking for, so I looked at the other stories, including some posted before the Guardian's.

They all used an image of the webpage showing the "Conservative Party" message - so I considered it striking that the Guardian was the only one using a different image. I wouldn't call it misinformation, but I would definitely call it shading to fit the message.

I apologise if you feel I have been "banging on" about it too much though.

Diane Abbott is infinitely better than Priti Patel.

Priti Patel is terrible - Diane Abbott was great when she was out-of-favour and appearing beside Portillo on a late night politics show. Obviously left-wing with much I would disagree with but with a strong core of common sense as well and a willingness to, using the old phrase, "call a spade a spade".

Then Corbyn won the leadership, she was back in favour, and she seemed to turn into a parrot of her leader. To be fair, as we later discovered, she was also not managing her illness well at the time.

Also my opinion of her has been somewhat coloured by things I have heard from someone who was involved in Liberal and Liberal Democrat politics in the Eighties and Nineties concerning her activities and associations in that period. She does not come across well at all in those stories, nor does her taste in associates.