On topic if charges are brought unfortunately for Mrs May she cannot blame the excess of the ancien régime, as her chief of staff has been implicated in the alleged shenanigans in Thanet South
On topic if charges are brought unfortunately for Mrs May she cannot blame the excess of the ancien régime, as her chief of staff has been implicated in the alleged shenanigans in Thanet South
Ministers are considering doing a deal with Nicola Sturgeon that would give her the power to hold a second independence referendum — but only after Brexit.
The move has prompted accusations that the Conservatives are “dreaming up ways to thwart a bid for Scottish independence”.
The Scottish government needs to strike an agreement with London, as it did in 2014, to put the question to voters again. Theresa May’s government is looking at making the timing of any second vote a “red line”.
UK ministers would argue that the Brexit deal has to be secured first so that Scots know what they are deciding on in an independence referendum. They will need to know what voting to stay in the UK means in terms of deals with Europe. However, it puts Ms Sturgeon in the unwelcome position of having to fight for independence after the UK has left the EU and therefore potentially without being able to play the card of continuing membership for Scotland.
It's part of the deal to get the Scottish government on board with Brexit. There will be cash bungs as well. Brexit will see a huge increase in patronage with money also going to northern Ireland, big businesses and foreign governments.
The other point is that the Conservative and Unionist Party is more concerned with cobbling something together for Brexit than preserving the Union right now.
Dave was right again.
To paraphrase Emperor Kahless The Unforgettable, 'Destroying a Union to leave another Union is no victory'
Unless you're not that bothered about either union. Since we seem incapable of coming up with real solutions to the West Lothian Question it seems appropriate.
All good Tories should be bothered about the Union, our party name kinda gives you an idea.
The Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Call me a bad Tory then but I am a firm believer in individual responsibility.
Power without responsibility which is the case currently without a WLQ solution is no way to run a country.
When I was an Agent some 30 years ago, it seemed like a legal minefield but compared with today it's simple. How do you (or indeed can you) differentiate between "local" and "national" expenditure in an age of social media ?
All the cases brought against all the parties show the current system of electoral expenses and funding to be wholly unfit for purpose and in dire need of some radical re-thinking.
I start with there being two credible positions - one is to have no expense limit at all, if the parties have the money, let them spend it where and how they like (it's their money after all). If a party wants to spend 1p in one constituency and £1 million in another what's wrong with that ?
The other credible position is to have no spending at all - parties have to campaign on an entirely voluntary basis. People and firms have to voluntarily give up time and money to work for a party. If a candidate can get a hundred volunteers and companies willing to give up their time to print leaflets or run phone banks or run social media campaigns, no problem.
I rather like the latter as an idea - the former allows for enough money to be spent to buy an election though as recent events have shown, spending a lot of money is no guarantee of success.
The current system invites abuse and no party is immune from that.
But that then invites shamateurism, with people being given 'paid leave' from non-jobs and the like. And would that mean that the parties' central organisations would have to be run on a voluntary basis? How would that square with the legal requirements placed on them (and, for that matter, the political expectations placed on them for scrutinising candidates' acceptability etc.?)
A better solution might be:
1. to clamp down on big donations, so as to reduce overall income, and also to reduce reliance on any one source so as to minimise the risks of politics being bought;
2. abolish the distinction between constituency and national spend and either - a. abolish constituency spending limits altogether, or - b. limit it to physical expenditure - leaflets, posters etc - within the designated constituency
3. cap overall expenditure within the short and long campaigns, to N x P, where N is the number of seats contested, and P is the per seat allowance for the given period.
Effectively parties can already buy elections, because only the Tories really have the funds to spend up to the limit. Labour struggles but has a pretty big budget. Everyone else - including the Lib Dems - doesn't have enough money to get anywhere near the national limit or in most constituencies the local limit.
Incidentally, I was an agent at the GE. Filling out the return is far from straightforward even for people who know what they are doing. No-one has picked any holes in my return as far as I know. Which is good, because I believe I filled it in carefully, correctly and honestly.
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
1. to clamp down on big donations, so as to reduce overall income, and also to reduce reliance on any one source so as to minimise the risks of politics being bought;
2. abolish the distinction between constituency and national spend and either - a. abolish constituency spending limits altogether, or - b. limit it to physical expenditure - leaflets, posters etc - within the designated constituency
3. cap overall expenditure within the short and long campaigns, to N x P, where N is the number of seats contested, and P is the per seat allowance for the given period.
Thank you for the considered response, David. To respond:
1) I suppose the argument goes if someone wants to give a Party £1 million that's their business - it's more of a question as to whether the Party could or should choose to accept it. I think it's a laudable aim - I'm not sure how practical.
2) Broadly speaking, I'd support it so all parties would have a single expenditure limit - £x million - and it would be up to them if they spent all of that nationally or all of it in some constituencies and nothing elsewhere.
3) I do think the short and long campaigns muddy the waters and it's an area which needs more thought and clarity. Arguably, having a fixed election date should help. Should we be looking to place a total limit on expenditure in a constituency during the life of a Parliament ? I don't think that would be right. How parties use their resources between elections is their business.
One overall observation - it's national elections where there are problems. I don't detect the same problems for local election campaigns.
Out of interest, do we know what did the LDs spent in Richmond last week? I can't imagine it's possible to spend much more than that in one place in a local campaign, if the reports of dozens of leaflets and hundreds of activists are to be believed.
That's a curious comment. All parties can call on legions (sorry TSE) of volunteers if required. The Conservatives flooded Newark with activists when it seemed UKIP were a real threat and I've seen how Labour can throw dozens of activists into areas of East London (how did they win Ilford North last time as an example ?).
These activists are volunteers - they will even pay for their own refreshments - and that's what being an activist means.
It's a bad state of affairs when people have to be paid to support the Conservative Party or work for it or deliver leaflets for it.
Stodge makes an interesting point about the long and short campaigns and about spending between elections. Long and short campaigns works fine if you know the date of the election in advance. Otherwise you may find you have had part of the long or short campaign before you knew you were in it. Good luck with sorting that out in most constituencies for most parties, who rely mainly on volunteer treasurers and agents (who may not even have been appointed yet).
Parties can spend as much as they like outside elections - which gives a huge advantage to the parties with money. Up to now that has been the Tories and UKIP. Not that UKIP knew what to do with the money. That problem has gone away now - because they don't have any money any more.
The whole thing needs simplifying, or loads of people are going to continue to inadvertantly report things incorrectly, while those who set out to deceive have no problem ignoring or cirumventing the rules.
Out of interest, do we know what did the LDs spent in Richmond last week? I can't imagine it's possible to spend much more than that in one place in a local campaign, if the reports of dozens of leaflets and hundreds of activists are to be believed.
That's a curious comment. All parties can call on legions (sorry TSE) of volunteers if required. The Conservatives flooded Newark with activists when it seemed UKIP were a real threat and I've seen how Labour can throw dozens of activists into areas of East London (how did they win Ilford North last time as an example ?).
These activists are volunteers - they will even pay for their own refreshments - and that's what being an activist means.
It's a bad state of affairs when people have to be paid to support the Conservative Party or work for it or deliver leaflets for it.
I don't think the people were being paid in any of the cases mentioned, the issue was more to do with the expenses involved in running e.g. a battle bus full of students on a nationwide tour - of renting the bus and decorating it, of accommodation and food for the volunteers etc.
My comment about the by-election spending was in response to another comment about how much it would actually be possible to spend in a single constituency at the GE - without annoying the hell out of the locals.
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
1. to clamp down on big donations, so as to reduce overall income, and also to reduce reliance on any one source so as to minimise the risks of politics being bought;
2. abolish the distinction between constituency and national spend and either - a. abolish constituency spending limits altogether, or - b. limit it to physical expenditure - leaflets, posters etc - within the designated constituency
3. cap overall expenditure within the short and long campaigns, to N x P, where N is the number of seats contested, and P is the per seat allowance for the given period.
Thank you for the considered response, David. To respond:
1) I suppose the argument goes if someone wants to give a Party £1 million that's their business - it's more of a question as to whether the Party could or should choose to accept it. I think it's a laudable aim - I'm not sure how practical.
Isn't £1m now known as a "Bernie", after Mr Ecclestone's 1997 attempt to exempt his business from anti-tobacco legislation support of the political aims of that nice Mr Blair?
1. to clamp down on big donations, so as to reduce overall income, and also to reduce reliance on any one source so as to minimise the risks of politics being bought;
2. abolish the distinction between constituency and national spend and either - a. abolish constituency spending limits altogether, or - b. limit it to physical expenditure - leaflets, posters etc - within the designated constituency
3. cap overall expenditure within the short and long campaigns, to N x P, where N is the number of seats contested, and P is the per seat allowance for the given period.
Thank you for the considered response, David. To respond:
1) I suppose the argument goes if someone wants to give a Party £1 million that's their business - it's more of a question as to whether the Party could or should choose to accept it. I think it's a laudable aim - I'm not sure how practical.
2) Broadly speaking, I'd support it so all parties would have a single expenditure limit - £x million - and it would be up to them if they spent all of that nationally or all of it in some constituencies and nothing elsewhere.
3) I do think the short and long campaigns muddy the waters and it's an area which needs more thought and clarity. Arguably, having a fixed election date should help. Should we be looking to place a total limit on expenditure in a constituency during the life of a Parliament ? I don't think that would be right. How parties use their resources between elections is their business.
One overall observation - it's national elections where there are problems. I don't detect the same problems for local election campaigns.
I seem to recall a previous debate on here before when someone claimed that the Lib Dems had clearly exceeded the expenses limits for a by election because they had distributed loads of leaflets that must have cost a fortune to produce . Leaflets printed by yourself on your own printer by volunteers clearly cost almost nothing beyond the cost of the paper ( which may have been bought and paid for prior to the short campaign . Leaflets bought from a printing company would cost vastly more . /the cost of leaflets printed by say a neighbouring Lib Dem Association which has their own printer may cause more problems in assessing the cost of producing them .
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
I suppose the only saving grace for the Tores is that all of the people involved with the 2015 general election have departed the stage.
Could Con be forced to fight Thanet South again? Perhaps Nige will have another go?
In the current post Brexit mood you wouldn't be that confident of the Conservatives retaining Thanet South in a by election with less than 3,000 majority would you?
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
It's poorly disguised censorship and the MSM protecting their marketshare.
The WaPo along with many others were embarrassed over their coverage of the #fakenews supposed listings.
I can understand the MSM trying every trick to shut down rivals - but it's become massively counter-productive, and they're still at it.
As TeamHillary repeated so many daft mistakes of TeamRemain - the MSM still haven't got it.
When your coverage is so obviously slanted one-way, trying to then censor rivals just makes it look even more desperate. I've stopped paying for The Times after years - this just reinforces my view now that even my once favourite go-to has lost the plot.
Like pollsters, these supposed pundits are missing the mark repeatedly - and trying to make the news, not report it.
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
If Douglas Murray is stuck for ideas, he could explore the phenomenon of right-wingers ascribing anything they don't like to left-wing papers or the BBC. Murray himself does it in the article you cite, as if populism is not the term of art used in the Telegraph, Times and even the Mail, as well as the Guardian.
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
Like pollsters, these supposed pundits are missing the mark repeatedly - and trying to make the news, not report it.
And what exactly are the fake news peddlers trying to do?
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
I don't think the Eyes (Private & Brass)), Mash etc are trying to convince anyone that their fake news is real, though it adds to the merriment when someone falls for it. Otoh there are certainly people out there pumping out fake news hoping people will believe it, and since they're mostly humourless ****s, they don't even have the fig leaf of satire to cover themselves with.
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
Like pollsters, these supposed pundits are missing the mark repeatedly - and trying to make the news, not report it.
And what exactly are the fake news peddlers trying to do?
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
If Douglas Murray is stuck for ideas, he could explore the phenomenon of right-wingers ascribing anything they don't like to left-wing papers or the BBC. Murray himself does it in the article you cite, as if populism is not the term of art used in the Telegraph, Times and even the Mail, as well as the Guardian.
From wikipedia:
"A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of "populism" as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, populists rarely call themselves "populists" and usually reject the term when it is applied to them, differing in that regard from those identified as conservatives or socialists."
I seem to recall a previous debate on here before when someone claimed that the Lib Dems had clearly exceeded the expenses limits for a by election because they had distributed loads of leaflets that must have cost a fortune to produce . Leaflets printed by yourself on your own printer by volunteers clearly cost almost nothing beyond the cost of the paper ( which may have been bought and paid for prior to the short campaign . Leaflets bought from a printing company would cost vastly more . /the cost of leaflets printed by say a neighbouring Lib Dem Association which has their own printer may cause more problems in assessing the cost of producing them .
I was lucky enough in my activist days to know both a good typesetter and a printer who were Liberal members and supporters and provided their technical expertise free of charge.
That said, we had to pay for the printing of leaflets but I suspect the "bill" was materials only rather than labour which said printer donated as a volunteer.
On topic if charges are brought unfortunately for Mrs May she cannot blame the excess of the ancien régime, as her chief of staff has been implicated in the alleged shenanigans in Thanet South
That's not a new phenomenon either. Crackpots have been attacking politicians and government officials — and others — for all sorts of dubious conspiratorial reasons for a long, long time. What are you going to do? Do you want to ban all dissemination of false or malicious information? Who draws up such censorship rules? And how the hell is it supposed to work?
As I've said before, what's worse than fake news? Trying to ban fake news.
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
Like pollsters, these supposed pundits are missing the mark repeatedly - and trying to make the news, not report it.
And what exactly are the fake news peddlers trying to do?
Make money from advertising on their web sites.
and also sometimes for political reasons:
"Coler is a soft-spoken 40-year-old with a wife and two kids. He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right."
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
Like pollsters, these supposed pundits are missing the mark repeatedly - and trying to make the news, not report it.
And what exactly are the fake news peddlers trying to do?
Make money from advertising on their web sites.
#FakeNews is all about what you're willing to listen to, rather than dismiss. We aren't rational beings and jump onto confirmation bias that suits us. CNN or MSNBC et al plays to their audience, just like the Guardian or Sun.
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
I don't think the Eyes (Private & Brass)), Mash etc are trying to convince anyone that their fake news is real, though it adds to the merriment when someone falls for it. Otoh there are certainly people out there pumping out fake news hoping people will believe it, and since they're mostly humourless ****s, they don't even have the fig leaf of satire to cover themselves with.
Are they even hoping people will believe it, or are they just looking for advertising clicks?
The problem with banning "fake news" is that scandals like Rotherham which were reported on by dodgy nationalist blogs would never have seen the light of day. On man's fake news is another scandal waiting to happen. Those blogs would all be labeled racist fake news sites in the current climate.
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
Like pollsters, these supposed pundits are missing the mark repeatedly - and trying to make the news, not report it.
And what exactly are the fake news peddlers trying to do?
Make money from advertising on their web sites.
and also sometimes for political reasons:
"Coler is a soft-spoken 40-year-old with a wife and two kids. He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right."
"Cameron ... too readily accepted the advice of civil servants like Sir Ivan Rogers and Tom Scholar that he could not defy EU law. ..... The ‘deal’ reflected that. Rogers and Scholar are now advising Theresa May to rein in her demands."
The problem with banning "fake news" is that scandals like Rotherham which were reported on by dodgy nationalist blogs would never have seen the light of day. On man's fake news is another scandal waiting to happen. Those blogs would all be labeled racist fake news sites in the current climate.
Exactly if you block "fake news" you will block some true news whilst you are at it. And it is likely that a fair chunk of the supposedly true news that is approved of by our beneficent censors will turn out to be "fake news".
I don't know why people think copying China is a good idea, but news censorship, increased monitoring of social media, and national scale "firewalls", all appear to be coming down the track.
The problem with banning "fake news" is that scandals like Rotherham which were reported on by dodgy nationalist blogs would never have seen the light of day. On man's fake news is another scandal waiting to happen. Those blogs would all be labeled racist fake news sites in the current climate.
Take the NYE horrors in Cologne. It was non-MSM media that outed the hundreds of sex attacks and the cover-ups by the German MSM.
When 96% of media donations were to the Hillary campaign in the US - that shows the balance is totally out of kilter. And the same people are now trying to censor the Right using #fakenews as a vehicle - especially so with their liberal fellow travellers who run Facebook and Twitter.
Anyone who can't see what a serious propaganda problem this is...
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
I don't think the Eyes (Private & Brass)), Mash etc are trying to convince anyone that their fake news is real, though it adds to the merriment when someone falls for it. Otoh there are certainly people out there pumping out fake news hoping people will believe it, and since they're mostly humourless ****s, they don't even have the fig leaf of satire to cover themselves with.
Are they even hoping people will believe it, or are they just looking for advertising clicks?
I may be wrong but I'd imagine most people clicking through to a juicy morsel aren't immediately thinking 'that looks like a right load of old bollox, I'll just have a read to make absolutely sure'. There appear to be substantial amounts of people who really believe in the Clinton satanic dinners and child murder stuff.
I was lucky enough in my activist days to know both a good typesetter and a printer who were Liberal members and supporters and provided their technical expertise free of charge.
That said, we had to pay for the printing of leaflets but I suspect the "bill" was materials only rather than labour which said printer donated as a volunteer.
But that is a donation, right, and should have been declared as such at full market cost?
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
I don't think the Eyes (Private & Brass)), Mash etc are trying to convince anyone that their fake news is real, though it adds to the merriment when someone falls for it. Otoh there are certainly people out there pumping out fake news hoping people will believe it, and since they're mostly humourless ****s, they don't even have the fig leaf of satire to cover themselves with.
Are they even hoping people will believe it, or are they just looking for advertising clicks?
I may be wrong but I'd imagine most people clicking through to a juicy morsel aren't immediately thinking 'that looks like a right load of old bollox, I'll just have a read to make absolutely sure'. There appear to be substantial amounts of people who really believe in the Clinton satanic dinners and child murder stuff.
I seem to recall a previous debate on here before when someone claimed that the Lib Dems had clearly exceeded the expenses limits for a by election because they had distributed loads of leaflets that must have cost a fortune to produce . Leaflets printed by yourself on your own printer by volunteers clearly cost almost nothing beyond the cost of the paper ( which may have been bought and paid for prior to the short campaign . Leaflets bought from a printing company would cost vastly more . /the cost of leaflets printed by say a neighbouring Lib Dem Association which has their own printer may cause more problems in assessing the cost of producing them .
I was lucky enough in my activist days to know both a good typesetter and a printer who were Liberal members and supporters and provided their technical expertise free of charge.
That said, we had to pay for the printing of leaflets but I suspect the "bill" was materials only rather than labour which said printer donated as a volunteer.
Can't you just pay for leaflets in advance, knowing the election will be along in 12 to 18 months?
The fact that the delivery of leaflets is during the election campaign is presumable irrelevant as they were paid for outside the accounting period.
The problem with banning "fake news" is that scandals like Rotherham which were reported on by dodgy nationalist blogs would never have seen the light of day. On man's fake news is another scandal waiting to happen. Those blogs would all be labeled racist fake news sites in the current climate.
Take the NYE horrors in Cologne. It was non-MSM media that outed the hundreds of sex attacks and the cover-ups by the German MSM.
When 96% of media donations were to the Hillary campaign in the US - that shows the balance is totally out of kilter. And the same people are now trying to censor the Right using #fakenews as a vehicle - especially so with their liberal fellow travellers who run Facebook and Twitter.
Anyone who can't see what a serious propaganda problem this is...
That the stories about "Fake News" started a couple of days after the US election, says probably all that is needed on the subject.
Yes there are some clickbait sites abroad from the US, but most of the more traditional media are equally culpable of trying to over-sensationalise and make the news.
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
Like pollsters, these supposed pundits are missing the mark repeatedly - and trying to make the news, not report it.
And what exactly are the fake news peddlers trying to do?
Make money from advertising on their web sites.
and also sometimes for political reasons:
"Coler is a soft-spoken 40-year-old with a wife and two kids. He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right."
The problem with banning "fake news" is that scandals like Rotherham which were reported on by dodgy nationalist blogs would never have seen the light of day. On man's fake news is another scandal waiting to happen. Those blogs would all be labeled racist fake news sites in the current climate.
Take the NYE horrors in Cologne. It was non-MSM media that outed the hundreds of sex attacks and the cover-ups by the German MSM.
When 96% of media donations were to the Hillary campaign in the US - that shows the balance is totally out of kilter. And the same people are now trying to censor the Right using #fakenews as a vehicle - especially so with their liberal fellow travellers who run Facebook and Twitter.
Anyone who can't see what a serious propaganda problem this is...
Speaking of that Cologne cover up... Turns out that's anther piece of fake news.
That the stories about "Fake News" started a couple of days after the US election, says probably all that is needed on the subject.
Yes, and in the case of Hillary a lot of the stories are 20 or more years old and go back to when Bill was President (and some of the stuff is even older than that and goes back to when he was Governor of Arkansas), but only now do they need to be censored.
Nor is "fake news" one sided, there are all sorts of left wing crackpots peddling nonsense about Republicans too.
I was lucky enough in my activist days to know both a good typesetter and a printer who were Liberal members and supporters and provided their technical expertise free of charge.
That said, we had to pay for the printing of leaflets but I suspect the "bill" was materials only rather than labour which said printer donated as a volunteer.
But that is a donation, right, and should have been declared as such at full market cost?
I don't know how grey opaque or sensible the rules are.
It isn't a donation, as you (the local or national party) bought them.
I guess it depends if the rules state expenditure during the election period or the value of items used during the election period.
The problem with banning "fake news" is that scandals like Rotherham which were reported on by dodgy nationalist blogs would never have seen the light of day. On man's fake news is another scandal waiting to happen. Those blogs would all be labeled racist fake news sites in the current climate.
Exactly if you block "fake news" you will block some true news whilst you are at it. And it is likely that a fair chunk of the supposedly true news that is approved of by our beneficent censors will turn out to be "fake news".
I don't know why people think copying China is a good idea, but news censorship, increased monitoring of social media, and national scale "firewalls", all appear to be coming down the track.
Yes banning news isn't a good idea. But it is a problem. Perhaps fining repeat offenders will work?
The problem with banning "fake news" is that scandals like Rotherham which were reported on by dodgy nationalist blogs would never have seen the light of day. On man's fake news is another scandal waiting to happen. Those blogs would all be labeled racist fake news sites in the current climate.
Take the NYE horrors in Cologne. It was non-MSM media that outed the hundreds of sex attacks and the cover-ups by the German MSM.
When 96% of media donations were to the Hillary campaign in the US - that shows the balance is totally out of kilter. And the same people are now trying to censor the Right using #fakenews as a vehicle - especially so with their liberal fellow travellers who run Facebook and Twitter.
Anyone who can't see what a serious propaganda problem this is...
That the stories about "Fake News" started a couple of days after the US election, says probably all that is needed on the subject.
Yes there are some clickbait sites abroad from the US, but most of the more traditional media are equally culpable of trying to over-sensationalise and make the news.
TBH, the deliberate *promotion* of BLM/Obama inviting them to the WHouse, any cop shooting of a black criminal blah blah/any claimed hate crime by the Right/ignoring those against Whites entirely... just says it all. It's poisonous and very dishonest. Their moral posturing makes me recoil.
The MSM has colluded in stirring up a very ugly racial and political divide. They thought they could do this as HRC would win - well she didn't, and now US citizens are experiencing the fall-out. Our media are no better.
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
Like pollsters, these supposed pundits are missing the mark repeatedly - and trying to make the news, not report it.
And what exactly are the fake news peddlers trying to do?
Make money from advertising on their web sites.
and also sometimes for political reasons:
"Coler is a soft-spoken 40-year-old with a wife and two kids. He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right."
That the stories about "Fake News" started a couple of days after the US election, says probably all that is needed on the subject.
Yes, and in the case of Hillary a lot of the stories are 20 or more years old and go back to when Bill was President (and some of the stuff is even older than that and goes back to when he was Governor of Arkansas), but only now do they need to be censored.
Nor is "fake news" one sided, there are all sorts of left wing crackpots peddling nonsense about Republicans too.
The only way to tackle fake news is to expose it as fake and give the real news. Fact checkers are what's needed.
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
There is a difference between spoof news for comedy and mendacious false reports that are supposed to be taken seriously.
A lot of the purveyors of fake news are claiming they are spoof sites post election but, for example, they went to to the trouble of posting fake Craigslist ad to support the "Soros funded paid protestors" fake story that Plato so loves.
That is so totally unnecessary for a spoof you can only conclude a deliberate information campaign.
Like if I was to start claiming with zero evidence someone on here was a oeadophile I'd be banned in short order. But if a random website made up to look like a legitimate news source does it we are supposed to accept it as run of the mill and not only my complain but accept it as legitimate.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
Like pollsters, these supposed pundits are missing the mark repeatedly - and trying to make the news, not report it.
And what exactly are the fake news peddlers trying to do?
Make money from advertising on their web sites.
and also sometimes for political reasons:
"Coler is a soft-spoken 40-year-old with a wife and two kids. He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right."
The thing about science is it's true whether you believe it or not.
It worries me that people seem to be less and less concerned about whether their opinions are based on objective reality or not. Back the 1980s, I saw, initially, acceptance of the reality of anthropogenic climate change and the need to act. This was later followed by attempts to discredit climate scientists and, subsequently, science in general. Now we seem to have reached the point at which rationality-based policy-making is itself questioned.
The problem with banning "fake news" is that scandals like Rotherham which were reported on by dodgy nationalist blogs would never have seen the light of day. On man's fake news is another scandal waiting to happen. Those blogs would all be labeled racist fake news sites in the current climate.
So the story that a gang of sexual abusers were caught by the police and prosecuted in court was totally super secret?
That the stories about "Fake News" started a couple of days after the US election, says probably all that is needed on the subject.
Yes, and in the case of Hillary a lot of the stories are 20 or more years old and go back to when Bill was President (and some of the stuff is even older than that and goes back to when he was Governor of Arkansas), but only now do they need to be censored.
Nor is "fake news" one sided, there are all sorts of left wing crackpots peddling nonsense about Republicans too.
The only way to tackle fake news is to expose it as fake and give the real news. Fact checkers are what's needed.
I think Facebook and other social media maybe have a responsibility to flag stories before you click on them with a... *Warning fact checking organisations characterise this story as false- click link tore why". People can still read it and make up their own mind... But at least they have the relevant info.
"There is a new buzz-word at the BBC. It's been bandied about on countless programmes and dominates the pages of the Left-wing papers. The 17 million-plus Britons who voted to leave the EU are described as part of a 'populist' revolution.
When the American public voted for Donald Trump to be their next President, the BBC and other media likewise described it as a triumph of populism.
...But, make no mistake, it is now being used as a sneering, pejorative term to describe the extraordinary social phenomenon sweeping both Europe and the U.S. as millions and millions of people express their anger at the ballot box over the indolence, corruption and complacency of their nation's political elite.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
Like pollsters, these supposed pundits are missing the mark repeatedly - and trying to make the news, not report it.
And what exactly are the fake news peddlers trying to do?
Make money from advertising on their web sites.
and also sometimes for political reasons:
"Coler is a soft-spoken 40-year-old with a wife and two kids. He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right."
Yes banning news isn't a good idea. But it is a problem. Perhaps fining repeat offenders will work?
Think about all the stories and rumours about US intelligence agencies that have been published over the years, the US government would rather such stories had never seen the light of day, and routinely denies that they are true (if they comment at all). Thanks to Snowden we now know that most of the "conspiracies" about the NSA at least were almost entirely correct. Do you really want a government to be able to block such stories or levy fines on those who publish them?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg, there are all sort of controversial areas where governments accuse the press of lying or misleading in their reporting; climate change, immigration, education, social services, defence, health care, election campaign spending, illegal drugs, human rights, political lobbying and more or less anything else where there isn't unanimity.
If we ever need official approval to publish our thoughts, whether or not they are correct, then free speech will be dead.
That the stories about "Fake News" started a couple of days after the US election, says probably all that is needed on the subject.
Yes, and in the case of Hillary a lot of the stories are 20 or more years old and go back to when Bill was President (and some of the stuff is even older than that and goes back to when he was Governor of Arkansas), but only now do they need to be censored.
Nor is "fake news" one sided, there are all sorts of left wing crackpots peddling nonsense about Republicans too.
The only way to tackle fake news is to expose it as fake and give the real news. Fact checkers are what's needed.
I was lucky enough in my activist days to know both a good typesetter and a printer who were Liberal members and supporters and provided their technical expertise free of charge.
That said, we had to pay for the printing of leaflets but I suspect the "bill" was materials only rather than labour which said printer donated as a volunteer.
But that is a donation, right, and should have been declared as such at full market cost?
I don't know how grey opaque or sensible the rules are.
It isn't a donation, as you (the local or national party) bought them.
I guess it depends if the rules state expenditure during the election period or the value of items used during the election period.
Surely what a supplier charges is their business. I’m about to buy membership cards on hehalf of a local non-political organisation. I send a draft to the copy shop, the guy in charge has had a look at it it and made a couple of suggestions. That’s his business. When I was an Agent I went to a printer whom I knew to be sympathetic, took the copy of what we thought was a good idea and he gave us his professional advice. I never had any non-political leaflets printed so I’ve no idea whether his rates were realistic or not.
That the stories about "Fake News" started a couple of days after the US election, says probably all that is needed on the subject.
Yes, and in the case of Hillary a lot of the stories are 20 or more years old and go back to when Bill was President (and some of the stuff is even older than that and goes back to when he was Governor of Arkansas), but only now do they need to be censored.
Nor is "fake news" one sided, there are all sorts of left wing crackpots peddling nonsense about Republicans too.
The only way to tackle fake news is to expose it as fake and give the real news. Fact checkers are what's needed.
Didn’t the BBC recently make the point that during a recent campaign fake stories were published at a time in the morning to ensure they were used in the morning news, and it wasn’t until after they’d been published that thet were shown to be false?
Like if I was to start claiming with zero evidence someone on here was a oeadophile I'd be banned in short order. But if a random website made up to look like a legitimate news source does it we are supposed to accept it as run of the mill and not only my complain but accept it as legitimate.
I hate to point out the bleeding obvious but a large chunk of the tabloid press would fall foul of such a ban, they routinely repeat allegations of sexual offences with little evidence to back them up. The sports pages of all newspapers are currently full of such stuff. Should they be banned? Probably not, but we only know the truth after police have investigated and prosecutions are brought.
Such censorship would protect some innocent people and the press do go too far at times, but it would also protect people who need to be locked up, and stop other people coming forward.
Jimmy Saville for one example didn't get anything like enough bad press as he deserved when he was alive.
Yes banning news isn't a good idea. But it is a problem. Perhaps fining repeat offenders will work?
Think about all the stories and rumours about US intelligence agencies that have been published over the years, the US government would rather such stories had never seen the light of day, and routinely denies that they are true (if they comment at all). Thanks to Snowden we now know that most of the "conspiracies" about the NSA at least were almost entirely correct. Do you really want a government to be able to block such stories or levy fines on those who publish them?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg, there are all sort of controversial areas where governments accuse the press of lying or misleading in their reporting; climate change, immigration, education, social services, defence, health care, election campaign spending, illegal drugs, human rights, political lobbying and more or less anything else where there isn't unanimity.
If we ever need official approval to publish our thoughts, whether or not they are correct, then free speech will be dead.
Well quite. It's the voices of dissent that don't have Big Vested Interests behind them that we ought to take a trifle more seriously.
I'm viscerally Ooh Nooo when it comes to conspiracy theories - I want to discount them all as it makes me uncomfortable to think such things could be true. The older I get, the more of them have become horribly accurate.
I was too compliant, and it embarrasses me. The Iraq War 45mins was the point where I stopped being so much of a sheep and started paying more attention to dissenting voices.
"Cameron ... too readily accepted the advice of civil servants like Sir Ivan Rogers and Tom Scholar that he could not defy EU law. ..... The ‘deal’ reflected that. Rogers and Scholar are now advising Theresa May to rein in her demands."
The top echelons of the civil service showed their true colours during the EU referendum.
And people wonder why they are an obstacle to reform.
They are bureaucrats and administrators, not politicians.
It's forgetting, however, that people not only die as they grow very old but grow up as they get older generally - so there's a missing row: People wiser to the true nature of the EU and our establishment +a gajillion -a gajillion
That the stories about "Fake News" started a couple of days after the US election, says probably all that is needed on the subject.
Yes, and in the case of Hillary a lot of the stories are 20 or more years old and go back to when Bill was President (and some of the stuff is even older than that and goes back to when he was Governor of Arkansas), but only now do they need to be censored.
Nor is "fake news" one sided, there are all sorts of left wing crackpots peddling nonsense about Republicans too.
The only way to tackle fake news is to expose it as fake and give the real news. Fact checkers are what's needed.
Didn’t the BBC recently make the point that during a recent campaign fake stories were published at a time in the morning to ensure they were used in the morning news, and it wasn’t until after they’d been published that thet were shown to be false?
So what like the way normal news works? Times prints incorrect story about Brexit overnight, picked up by the likes of BBC on Today programme, only much later in the day does the truth start to emerge.
"Cameron ... too readily accepted the advice of civil servants like Sir Ivan Rogers and Tom Scholar that he could not defy EU law. ..... The ‘deal’ reflected that. Rogers and Scholar are now advising Theresa May to rein in her demands."
The top echelons of the civil service showed their true colours during the EU referendum.
And people wonder why they are an obstacle to reform.
They are bureaucrats and administrators, not politicians.
And May should just ignore Rogers and Scholar.
It's amazing they still have the temerity to advise her on the subject.
The reason "Fake News" or more relevant "Alternative News" e.g. Breitbart, Alex Jones, etc has grown is because the MSM have been unwilling / uninterested to address stories surrounding issues of certain subjects will the wider public feel are important...then this opens the floor for others to put their spin on certain stories, be it the grooming gangs in Rochdale, Wikileaks emails, lets not forget the Climate-gate stuff, or more day to day concerns over things like immigration.
I don't get the whole furore over fake news. To take a rather more serious example, terrorism it seemed to only be "important" after a certain date in the calendar... like it hadn't happened before.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
Like pollsters, these supposed pundits are missing the mark repeatedly - and trying to make the news, not report it.
And what exactly are the fake news peddlers trying to do?
Make money from advertising on their web sites.
and also sometimes for political reasons:
"Coler is a soft-spoken 40-year-old with a wife and two kids. He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right."
Classy response by Delingpole. Apparently, because the atmospheric scientist in question is an attractive woman, her arguments and her outrage at being misrepresented can be safely ignored. Makes sense, I guess, for the Breitbart's target audience.
It's forgetting, however, that people not only die as they grow very old but grow up as they get older generally - so there's a missing row: People wiser to the true nature of the EU and our establishment +a gajillion -a gajillion
How enormously entertaining. Like Tory voters dying off - yet somehow being HMG - yet again.
Such nonsense promulgated by those who know a great deal better...
Can't you just pay for leaflets in advance, knowing the election will be along in 12 to 18 months?
The fact that the delivery of leaflets is during the election campaign is presumable irrelevant as they were paid for outside the accounting period.
I was referring to the normal outside election activity when we needed a quick street letter on a planning issue.
As to election leaflets, they are or were an order of magnitude more complex and costly. First, decent paper second, more photos and graphics and IF you know who your candidate or "local spokesperson" is going to be, fine.
Surely what a supplier charges is their business. I’m about to buy membership cards on hehalf of a local non-political organisation. I send a draft to the copy shop, the guy in charge has had a look at it it and made a couple of suggestions. That’s his business. When I was an Agent I went to a printer whom I knew to be sympathetic, took the copy of what we thought was a good idea and he gave us his professional advice. I never had any non-political leaflets printed so I’ve no idea whether his rates were realistic or not.
What a supplier charges is not just his business, if it's effectively a donation. To take an extreme example, if News International offered to print millions of copies of a special newspaper-style leaflet on behalf of a party, and charged the party £10 for the whole lot, then the amount of expediture to be declared would not be £10, but the normal market cost of getting the leaflets printed. It obviously has to be like that, otherwise the limits would be even more meaningless than they currently are.
Yes banning news isn't a good idea. But it is a problem. Perhaps fining repeat offenders will work?
Think about all the stories and rumours about US intelligence agencies that have been published over the years, the US government would rather such stories had never seen the light of day, and routinely denies that they are true (if they comment at all). Thanks to Snowden we now know that most of the "conspiracies" about the NSA at least were almost entirely correct. Do you really want a government to be able to block such stories or levy fines on those who publish them?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg, there are all sort of controversial areas where governments accuse the press of lying or misleading in their reporting; climate change, immigration, education, social services, defence, health care, election campaign spending, illegal drugs, human rights, political lobbying and more or less anything else where there isn't unanimity.
If we ever need official approval to publish our thoughts, whether or not they are correct, then free speech will be dead.
To be clear... I wasnt proposing official approval to publish thoughts. Merely that commercial enterprises should face consequences after the fact of having publishe something...
We already have defamation laws - this would merely be an extension?
That the stories about "Fake News" started a couple of days after the US election, says probably all that is needed on the subject.
Yes, and in the case of Hillary a lot of the stories are 20 or more years old and go back to when Bill was President (and some of the stuff is even older than that and goes back to when he was Governor of Arkansas), but only now do they need to be censored.
Nor is "fake news" one sided, there are all sorts of left wing crackpots peddling nonsense about Republicans too.
The only way to tackle fake news is to expose it as fake and give the real news. Fact checkers are what's needed.
The problem with banning "fake news" is that scandals like Rotherham which were reported on by dodgy nationalist blogs would never have seen the light of day. On man's fake news is another scandal waiting to happen. Those blogs would all be labeled racist fake news sites in the current climate.
So the story that a gang of sexual abusers were caught by the police and prosecuted in court was totally super secret?
That's not the timeline though. It started with right wing and white supremacist blogs reporting on underground rapes of white children by Muslim men. The prosecutions came a couple of years later after Nick Griffin and then The Times took up the cause.
The problem with banning "fake news" is that scandals like Rotherham which were reported on by dodgy nationalist blogs would never have seen the light of day. On man's fake news is another scandal waiting to happen. Those blogs would all be labeled racist fake news sites in the current climate.
So the story that a gang of sexual abusers were caught by the police and prosecuted in court was totally super secret?
That's not the timeline though. It started with right wing and white supremacist blogs reporting on underground rapes of white children by Muslim men. The prosecutions came a couple of years later after Nick Griffin and then The Times took up the cause.
Remember the reaction the guy at the Times got when he first raised this story...a weaker journalist would have retreated from the story.
The problem with banning "fake news" is that scandals like Rotherham which were reported on by dodgy nationalist blogs would never have seen the light of day. On man's fake news is another scandal waiting to happen. Those blogs would all be labeled racist fake news sites in the current climate.
Take the NYE horrors in Cologne. It was non-MSM media that outed the hundreds of sex attacks and the cover-ups by the German MSM.
When 96% of media donations were to the Hillary campaign in the US - that shows the balance is totally out of kilter. And the same people are now trying to censor the Right using #fakenews as a vehicle - especially so with their liberal fellow travellers who run Facebook and Twitter.
Anyone who can't see what a serious propaganda problem this is...
Speaking of that Cologne cover up... Turns out that's anther piece of fake news.
The problem with banning "fake news" is that scandals like Rotherham which were reported on by dodgy nationalist blogs would never have seen the light of day. On man's fake news is another scandal waiting to happen. Those blogs would all be labeled racist fake news sites in the current climate.
So the story that a gang of sexual abusers were caught by the police and prosecuted in court was totally super secret?
That's not the timeline though. It started with right wing and white supremacist blogs reporting on underground rapes of white children by Muslim men. The prosecutions came a couple of years later after Nick Griffin and then The Times took up the cause.
Remember the reaction the guy at the Times got when he first raised this story...a weaker journalist would have retreated from the story.
Effectively parties can already buy elections, because only the Tories really have the funds to spend up to the limit. Labour struggles but has a pretty big budget. Everyone else - including the Lib Dems - doesn't have enough money to get anywhere near the national limit or in most constituencies the local limit.
Incidentally, I was an agent at the GE. Filling out the return is far from straightforward even for people who know what they are doing. No-one has picked any holes in my return as far as I know. Which is good, because I believe I filled it in carefully, correctly and honestly.
The good thing, as I was saying earlier, is that mostly nowadays people give up on the forms and just do their own format with the necessary info.
The expenses returns are actually looked at by, either, nobody at all, or another political party, just for curiosity. There are almost never any challenges (by parties - journalists like Crick are another matter) for reasons that readers of this thread will be able to work out for themselves.
The reason "Fake News" or more relevant "Alternative News" e.g. Breitbart, Alex Jones, etc has grown is because the MSM have been unwilling / uninterested to address stories surrounding issues of certain subjects...then this opens the floor for others to put their spin on certain stories, be it the grooming gangs in Rochdale, Wikileaks emails, lets not forget the Climate-gate stuff, or more day to day concerns over things like immigration.
Rogan does a very funny impersonation of Alex Jones in his show with Scott Adams - as well as another parodying Geek Speak.
Jones is such hilarious theatre - he's all survivalist mode, and plays to his audience effectively. From intvs I've seen - apparently he's like this all of the time and very amusing company. He's not my cup of tea at all.
Paul Joseph Watson is extremely savvy and media smart - I pay attention to him. O'Keefe is excellent and winning his war. Just watched a speech he made and apparently Project Veritas had 8 embedded moles in the DNC/their associated orgs for a year. He's a serious player and not scared. He's got my respect.
Comments
Power without responsibility which is the case currently without a WLQ solution is no way to run a country.
A better solution might be:
1. to clamp down on big donations, so as to reduce overall income, and also to reduce reliance on any one source so as to minimise the risks of politics being bought;
2. abolish the distinction between constituency and national spend and either
- a. abolish constituency spending limits altogether, or
- b. limit it to physical expenditure - leaflets, posters etc - within the designated constituency
3. cap overall expenditure within the short and long campaigns, to N x P, where N is the number of seats contested, and P is the per seat allowance for the given period.
Incidentally, I was an agent at the GE. Filling out the return is far from straightforward even for people who know what they are doing. No-one has picked any holes in my return as far as I know. Which is good, because I believe I filled it in carefully, correctly and honestly.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/08/wales-brexit-welsh-national-assembly-uk-constitution?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
1) I suppose the argument goes if someone wants to give a Party £1 million that's their business - it's more of a question as to whether the Party could or should choose to accept it. I think it's a laudable aim - I'm not sure how practical.
2) Broadly speaking, I'd support it so all parties would have a single expenditure limit - £x million - and it would be up to them if they spent all of that nationally or all of it in some constituencies and nothing elsewhere.
3) I do think the short and long campaigns muddy the waters and it's an area which needs more thought and clarity. Arguably, having a fixed election date should help. Should we be looking to place a total limit on expenditure in a constituency during the life of a Parliament ? I don't think that would be right. How parties use their resources between elections is their business.
One overall observation - it's national elections where there are problems. I don't detect the same problems for local election campaigns.
Some butterflies.
Thanks for the butterflies.
These activists are volunteers - they will even pay for their own refreshments - and that's what being an activist means.
It's a bad state of affairs when people have to be paid to support the Conservative Party or work for it or deliver leaflets for it.
I applaud Crick and his persistence. The wonders of a free press and good, old-fashioned journalism.
Long and short campaigns works fine if you know the date of the election in advance. Otherwise you may find you have had part of the long or short campaign before you knew you were in it. Good luck with sorting that out in most constituencies for most parties, who rely mainly on volunteer treasurers and agents (who may not even have been appointed yet).
Parties can spend as much as they like outside elections - which gives a huge advantage to the parties with money. Up to now that has been the Tories and UKIP. Not that UKIP knew what to do with the money. That problem has gone away now - because they don't have any money any more.
The whole thing needs simplifying, or loads of people are going to continue to inadvertantly report things incorrectly, while those who set out to deceive have no problem ignoring or cirumventing the rules.
My comment about the by-election spending was in response to another comment about how much it would actually be possible to spend in a single constituency at the GE - without annoying the hell out of the locals.
Private Eye, the Daily Mash, the Onion, Chris Morris (And countless others) all exist and trade in "fake news" yet suddenly it is presented as a 'new' idea that is ensnaring thickies, and caused Trump to get elected ?
Pull the other one.
Labour are heading for a big fall in Wales
Leaflets printed by yourself on your own printer by volunteers clearly cost almost nothing beyond the cost of the paper ( which may have been bought and paid for prior to the short campaign . Leaflets bought from a printing company would cost vastly more . /the cost of leaflets printed by say a neighbouring Lib Dem Association which has their own printer may cause more problems in assessing the cost of producing them .
Swampier than Trump's swampy swamp.
SWAMPY
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/in-the-back
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/5/13842258/pizzagate-comet-ping-pong-fake-news
Could Con be forced to fight Thanet South again? Perhaps Nige will have another go?
In the current post Brexit mood you wouldn't be that confident of the Conservatives retaining Thanet South in a by election with less than 3,000 majority would you?
The WaPo along with many others were embarrassed over their coverage of the #fakenews supposed listings.
I can understand the MSM trying every trick to shut down rivals - but it's become massively counter-productive, and they're still at it.
As TeamHillary repeated so many daft mistakes of TeamRemain - the MSM still haven't got it.
When your coverage is so obviously slanted one-way, trying to then censor rivals just makes it look even more desperate. I've stopped paying for The Times after years - this just reinforces my view now that even my once favourite go-to has lost the plot.
Like pollsters, these supposed pundits are missing the mark repeatedly - and trying to make the news, not report it.
"A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of "populism" as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, populists rarely call themselves "populists" and usually reject the term when it is applied to them, differing in that regard from those identified as conservatives or socialists."
That said, we had to pay for the printing of leaflets but I suspect the "bill" was materials only rather than labour which said printer donated as a volunteer.
As I've said before, what's worse than fake news? Trying to ban fake news.
"Coler is a soft-spoken 40-year-old with a wife and two kids. He says he got into fake news around 2013 to highlight the extremism of the white nationalist alt-right."
http://www.cpr.org/news/npr-story/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs
I enjoyed this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs&t=5s
Note to Breitbart: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Please Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/the-seven-moments-that-lost-the-referendum-for-remain/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20161210_Weekly_Highlights_50_NONSUBS
"Cameron ... too readily accepted the advice of civil servants like Sir Ivan Rogers and Tom Scholar that he could not defy EU law. ..... The ‘deal’ reflected that. Rogers and Scholar are now advising Theresa May to rein in her demands."
I don't know why people think copying China is a good idea, but news censorship, increased monitoring of social media, and national scale "firewalls", all appear to be coming down the track.
When 96% of media donations were to the Hillary campaign in the US - that shows the balance is totally out of kilter. And the same people are now trying to censor the Right using #fakenews as a vehicle - especially so with their liberal fellow travellers who run Facebook and Twitter.
Anyone who can't see what a serious propaganda problem this is...
The fact that the delivery of leaflets is during the election campaign is presumable irrelevant as they were paid for outside the accounting period.
Yes there are some clickbait sites abroad from the US, but most of the more traditional media are equally culpable of trying to over-sensationalise and make the news.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/claim-of-media-cover-up-on-cologne-sex-attacks-is-nonsense-1.2492574
Nor is "fake news" one sided, there are all sorts of left wing crackpots peddling nonsense about Republicans too.
It isn't a donation, as you (the local or national party) bought them.
I guess it depends if the rules state expenditure during the election period or the value of items used during the election period.
But it is a problem. Perhaps fining repeat offenders will work?
The MSM has colluded in stirring up a very ugly racial and political divide. They thought they could do this as HRC would win - well she didn't, and now US citizens are experiencing the fall-out. Our media are no better.
A lot of the purveyors of fake news are claiming they are spoof sites post election but, for example, they went to to the trouble of posting fake Craigslist ad to support the "Soros funded paid protestors" fake story that Plato so loves.
That is so totally unnecessary for a spoof you can only conclude a deliberate information campaign.
Like if I was to start claiming with zero evidence someone on here was a oeadophile I'd be banned in short order. But if a random website made up to look like a legitimate news source does it we are supposed to accept it as run of the mill and not only my complain but accept it as legitimate.
People can still read it and make up their own mind... But at least they have the relevant info.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/806820537892794368
And that's just the tip of the iceberg, there are all sort of controversial areas where governments accuse the press of lying or misleading in their reporting; climate change, immigration, education, social services, defence, health care, election campaign spending, illegal drugs, human rights, political lobbying and more or less anything else where there isn't unanimity.
If we ever need official approval to publish our thoughts, whether or not they are correct, then free speech will be dead.
When I was an Agent I went to a printer whom I knew to be sympathetic, took the copy of what we thought was a good idea and he gave us his professional advice.
I never had any non-political leaflets printed so I’ve no idea whether his rates were realistic or not.
Does anyone think that the forced re-running of the EU referendum would produce a different result from the 1997 Winchester by-election?
Such censorship would protect some innocent people and the press do go too far at times, but it would also protect people who need to be locked up, and stop other people coming forward.
Jimmy Saville for one example didn't get anything like enough bad press as he deserved when he was alive.
I'm viscerally Ooh Nooo when it comes to conspiracy theories - I want to discount them all as it makes me uncomfortable to think such things could be true. The older I get, the more of them have become horribly accurate.
I was too compliant, and it embarrasses me. The Iraq War 45mins was the point where I stopped being so much of a sheep and started paying more attention to dissenting voices.
And people wonder why they are an obstacle to reform.
They are bureaucrats and administrators, not politicians.
It's forgetting, however, that people not only die as they grow very old but grow up as they get older generally - so there's a missing row:
People wiser to the true nature of the EU and our establishment +a gajillion -a gajillion
It's amazing they still have the temerity to advise her on the subject.
Such nonsense promulgated by those who know a great deal better...
As to election leaflets, they are or were an order of magnitude more complex and costly. First, decent paper second, more photos and graphics and IF you know who your candidate or "local spokesperson" is going to be, fine.
We already have defamation laws - this would merely be an extension?
The expenses returns are actually looked at by, either, nobody at all, or another political party, just for curiosity. There are almost never any challenges (by parties - journalists like Crick are another matter) for reasons that readers of this thread will be able to work out for themselves.
Jones is such hilarious theatre - he's all survivalist mode, and plays to his audience effectively. From intvs I've seen - apparently he's like this all of the time and very amusing company. He's not my cup of tea at all.
Paul Joseph Watson is extremely savvy and media smart - I pay attention to him. O'Keefe is excellent and winning his war. Just watched a speech he made and apparently Project Veritas had 8 embedded moles in the DNC/their associated orgs for a year. He's a serious player and not scared. He's got my respect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJCJpmUAy0s