The debate last night will definitely take a few points off the Tories in the polls..whether it will lead to a sustained rise for labour who knows. Boris was in my view useless
He probably was. Because he is.
So it should give Labour supporters pause that Corbyn was seen as even more useless.
He wasnt in my eyes and I tried to look at it dispassionately with my family. We scored it independently of each other..all of us scored Boris huge winner in first 20 mins then he lost the plot.
The most telling verdict was the audience laughter at both men. Mocking, rather than appreciative.
The debate last night will definitely take a few points off the Tories in the polls..whether it will lead to a sustained rise for labour who knows. Boris was in my view useless
He probably was. Because he is.
So it should give Labour supporters pause that Corbyn was seen as even more useless.
He wasnt in my eyes and I tried to look at it dispassionately with my family.
All I was pointing out was that your view was not widely shared.
I can’t help it if you feel the people are wrong. They still have more votes than you.
I note that Labour leaders almost always beat Tory ones on this hands down.
I think it just means "not posh" or perhaps in some way "normal", but there's something paternalistic about it too, so not wholly positive.
I think it reflects the question from the ?care worker? who said you've both lived comfortable lives, why would either of you understand poverty? Johnson waffled, Corbyn said part of his job was to listen to people. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that Corbyn is more familiar with the challenges of low incomes than Johnson. Whether that matters is of course something for voters to decide.
Corbyn for all his faults comes across as having genuine empathy for other people and the issues they face on a daily basis . I think that does matter to people .
His problem is that his answer to the ills of today would leave far more people in poverty.
I note that Labour leaders almost always beat Tory ones on this hands down.
I think it just means "not posh" or perhaps in some way "normal", but there's something paternalistic about it too, so not wholly positive.
I think it reflects the question from the ?care worker? who said you've both lived comfortable lives, why would either of you understand poverty? Johnson waffled, Corbyn said part of his job was to listen to people. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that Corbyn is more familiar with the challenges of low incomes than Johnson. Whether that matters is of course something for voters to decide.
Corbyn for all his faults comes across as having genuine empathy for other people and the issues they face on a daily basis . I think that does matter to people .
He may to you.
He does not to me.
I think with Corbyn half the problem is his supporters or waverers see what they want to see rather than what’s really there.
I’m not a fan of Corbyn but he does seem more genuine . Voters of course make their decision on a host of things.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
BladeRunner was set today. Amazing how Philip K Dick’s visions have endured so well. He captured the banality and emptiness of the future like no other science fiction writer.
Or perhaps the mixture of the weird and the familiar.
Appropriately, I watched a couple of episodes of The Man in the High Castle, rather than the debate. The third season is very good.
Only just catching up with yesterday's debate shenanigans. Spent the evening drinking away our sorrows about Poch.
1. The Twitter name change has had its intended effect. It was designed to make the lefty idiots talk about something other than the debate because Bozza was in a no win position. Winning 51/49 isn't really a win given the level of expectations. Now the papers and twitterati are talking about something other than Jez doing a lot better than expected.
2. In addition, it became clear that Jez has no answer on brexit, this is not going to be a repeat of 2017. In 2017 both were talking about rival types of deal and implementation of the result. This time Bozza goes in with the deal in hand, Jez will do something else, something that doesn't respect the 2016 vote.
3. "Get brexit done" is as good as the 2015 "long term economic plan" and that was the backbone of the last majority we won. It's much better than "strong and stable". Labour doesn't have a strapline so no one knows what their campaign is for, other than not letting Bozza sell the NHS to Trump (which most people don't believe anyway) and putting BT out of business.
4. Finally, the quality of the debate was piss poor. The 2010 "I agree with Nick" is still the high water mark of leader debates in this country. Followed by Dave smashing Ed to pieces in 2015. Everything else has been dogshit.
Overall, Jez had one chance, and his supporters are all talking about some Tory Twitter bullshit instead of how he did better than most people expected.
The debate last night will definitely take a few points off the Tories in the polls..whether it will lead to a sustained rise for labour who knows. Boris was in my view useless
He probably was. Because he is.
So it should give Labour supporters pause that Corbyn was seen as even more useless.
He wasnt in my eyes and I tried to look at it dispassionately with my family. We scored it independently of each other..all of us scored Boris huge winner in first 20 mins then he lost the plot.
The most telling verdict was the audience laughter at both men. Mocking, rather than appreciative.
Well each got a couple of laughs in support as well. Corbyns best line was about the monarchy having room for improvement, delivered that well. Boris's was probably the money forest gag.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
Good point . The amount of the public who would know what that meant is minimal . The Tories really have reached rock bottom with their disgusting antics .
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Thsts the theory, for attention. Pretty lousy behaviour.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
Anyone engaged in British politics.
And considering the handle is CCHQ Press that's what they call themselves all the time and not just yesterday.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
As an attempt to deceive using Lolz as an excuse.
Personally it's not fair game. A personal account can be used for the Lolz but business accounts should remain professional.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
As an attempt to deceive using Lolz as an excuse.
Personally it's not fair game. A personal account can be used for the Lolz but business accounts should remain professional.
Who's being deceived?
Anyone who follows the account almost certainly knows what CCHQ stands for and it still said CCHQ.
If it wasn't so widely by critics then who else would have seen it?
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
I’m not sure the debates are really about the debates anymore.
They’re about generating headlines and soundbites for wider social and MSM dissemination.
Thats true, but the frustrating thing, as per the public view in the header, is in their defence Boris and Corbyn showed willingness to actually debate. They wanted to come back on one another, they didnt interrupt too much, they seem like in the right format they would have debated a bit more.
Double length No audience No mention of who asked the question (it can get revealed later if people want to be sure the broadcaster did not write it) or just set topics and let them at it.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
It would make no difference whatsoever. They have others.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
Good point . The amount of the public who would know what that meant is minimal . The Tories really have reached rock bottom with their disgusting antics .
The main two things I remember from the 2017 campaign are:
1) the Labour party deliberately lying about the Conservative social care policy, by claiming it would force surviving spouses out of their homes 2) Labour pretending they were going to cancel all student debt, even though that wasn't in their manifesto and they knew it was undeliverable (as they later admitted)
The Tories muck about with their Twitter handle for one evening (leaving a clear reference in to CCHQ) and it's the worst thing anyone could ever do? What is wrong with you people?
The debate last night will definitely take a few points off the Tories in the polls..whether it will lead to a sustained rise for labour who knows. Boris was in my view useless
He probably was. Because he is.
So it should give Labour supporters pause that Corbyn was seen as even more useless.
He wasnt in my eyes and I tried to look at it dispassionately with my family. We scored it independently of each other..all of us scored Boris huge winner in first 20 mins then he lost the plot.
The most telling verdict was the audience laughter at both men. Mocking, rather than appreciative.
Well each got a couple of laughs in support as well. Corbyns best line was about the monarchy having room for improvement, delivered that well. Boris's was probably the money forest gag.
It is where Brexit and the politics of populism has brought us; a choice between two pillocks that you wouldn't leave in charge of a mobile chippy
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
As an attempt to deceive using Lolz as an excuse.
Personally it's not fair game. A personal account can be used for the Lolz but business accounts should remain professional.
Who's being deceived?
Anyone who follows the account almost certainly knows what CCHQ stands for and it still said CCHQ.
If it wasn't so widely by critics then who else would have seen it?
Yes everyone who follows the account is not deceived but anyone who sees a retweet or like IS deceived as they don't know what the account actually is.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
Good point . The amount of the public who would know what that meant is minimal . The Tories really have reached rock bottom with their disgusting antics .
The main two things I remember from the 2017 campaign are:
1) the Labour party deliberately lying about the Conservative social care policy, by claiming it would force surviving spouses out of their homes 2) Labour pretending they were going to cancel all student debt, even though that wasn't in their manifesto and they knew it was undeliverable (as they later admitted)
The Tories muck about with their Twitter handle for one evening (leaving a clear reference in to CCHQ) and it's the worst thing anyone could ever do? What is wrong with you people?
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
As an attempt to deceive using Lolz as an excuse.
Personally it's not fair game. A personal account can be used for the Lolz but business accounts should remain professional.
Who's being deceived?
Anyone who follows the account almost certainly knows what CCHQ stands for and it still said CCHQ.
If it wasn't so widely by critics then who else would have seen it?
I quite often misread it for GCHQ. So I'm thinking if those impartial boffins in Cheltenham are saying this...
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
It would make no difference whatsoever. They have others.
I’m assuming all the Tory twitter accounts are verified as associated accounts with Twitter.
If one gets suspended then they all get suspended.
I didn't watch the debate last night, but I definitely remember Johnson saying "Get Brexit done"
His strongest non Brexit moment (well half brexit) was declaring the nhs not being on the table. He looked serious, genuine and didnt waffle about it. I think corbyn overdid his 'serious subject' voice a bit, but on leadership and listening he was firm, reasonable sounding and to the point, it was his strongest moment.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
As an attempt to deceive using Lolz as an excuse.
Personally it's not fair game. A personal account can be used for the Lolz but business accounts should remain professional.
Who's being deceived?
Anyone who follows the account almost certainly knows what CCHQ stands for and it still said CCHQ.
If it wasn't so widely by critics then who else would have seen it?
Yes everyone who follows the account is not deceived but anyone who sees a retweet or like IS deceived as they don't know what the account actually is.
Because everyone with the word Factcheck in their name is automatically a source of neutrality. If you believe that you're insanely gullible.
Has anyone had a look at 'Factcheck Paton' who was so outraged that he or she posted this?
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
It would make no difference whatsoever. They have others.
I’m assuming all the Tory twitter accounts are verified as associated accounts with Twitter.
If one gets suspended then they all get suspended.
Still no difference. They have accounts to put out their spin, they'll just assign a person to coordinate that duty from their own account if they have to. Where the spin comes from is irrelevant. Just tell all candidates to follow, idk, James cleverly and retweet him as he'll send out the spin.
The problem with the Con Twitter stunt is it won't have fooled anyone and won't have driven any eyeballs to the account as only political obsessives would have been checking twitter whilst the debate was on.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
A precedent before they do that to Trump could be very handy.
I watched this from 12,000 miles away, but that lofty perspective hasn’t given me any greater insight. I saw a dull score draw like everyone else. Corbyn was more sincere, Boris more alpha.
Moving on: the next polls are quite crucial. This is one of two opportunities for Labour to break the narrative. The other is the manifesto launch. Also this week.
If Labour don’t move the polls decisively after these events, then, absent black swans, Boris gets his majority.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
It would make no difference whatsoever. They have others.
I’m assuming all the Tory twitter accounts are verified as associated accounts with Twitter.
If one gets suspended then they all get suspended.
Twitter have already said this shouldn't happen again and moved on.
Twitter are not going to get into a political firestorm by suspending the governing parties accounts during a General Election.
BladeRunner was set today. Amazing how Philip K Dick’s visions have endured so well. He captured the banality and emptiness of the future like no other science fiction writer.
Or perhaps the mixture of the weird and the familiar.
Appropriately, I watched a couple of episodes of The Man in the High Castle, rather than the debate. The third season is very good.
The first season was good, but I felt it lost its way in the second. Now I see there's a fourth.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
As an attempt to deceive using Lolz as an excuse.
Personally it's not fair game. A personal account can be used for the Lolz but business accounts should remain professional.
Who's being deceived?
Anyone who follows the account almost certainly knows what CCHQ stands for and it still said CCHQ.
If it wasn't so widely by critics then who else would have seen it?
I quite often misread it for GCHQ. So I'm thinking if those impartial boffins in Cheltenham are saying this...
If someone thinks that they are going to swayed by great many things that are not true. CCHQ have acted shittily, but someone fooled like that was already fooled by something equally silly.
I watched this from 12,000 miles away, but that lofty perspective hasn’t given me any greater insight. I saw a dull score draw like everyone else. Corbyn was more sincere, Boris more alpha.
Moving on: the next polls are quite crucial. This is one of two opportunities for Labour to break the narrative. The other is the manifesto launch. Also this week.
If Labour don’t move the polls decisively after these events, then, absent black swans, Boris gets his majority.
What no "sensible" Labour supporter has explained thus far:
Why on earth would the EU27 renegotiate a Brexit deal with a Corbyn government in 3 days, 3 months or even 3 years knowing that the majority of the cabinet has already stated their intention to campaign for remain i.e. against the new deal in any subsequent referendum. It simply makes no sense and I certainly cannot see President Macron sanctioning it. More likely the EU would insist either a Corbyn government ratifies Boris' deal or puts it up against remain as the options in a second referendum.
The changes Labour proposes will principally affect the political declaration, which is not legally binding, and move the direction of travel for the final deal towards closer alignment which is what the EU wants. The EU will always be happy to renegotiate the deal if it is in a direction that they like - that after all is why they were happy to renegotiate the deal with Johnson, since the revised arrangements for NI were more or less what the EU had proposed in the first place.
I don't know if I am considered "sensible" but I hope this explanation will be deemed sufficient.
Well in that case why bother with the renegotiation and not just go straight to a referendum? Given that Labour (in power) could just repudiate the political declaration and pursuing of its objectives unilaterally.
I suppose they want to give the electorate a clear and honest choice between a deal that Labour would implement and Remain. For that they need a deal including PD that accurately describes the intended direction of travel, rather than presenting the Tories' deal and saying that this isn't actually what they will implement. If this is such a relevant question for Labour, then let's also ask why Johnson renegotiated the deal? After all, in an FTA (which he claims can be negotiated in a few months) the backstop is rendered redundant, so why couldn't he have just signed up to May's deal?
I watched this from 12,000 miles away, but that lofty perspective hasn’t given me any greater insight. I saw a dull score draw like everyone else. Corbyn was more sincere, Boris more alpha.
Moving on: the next polls are quite crucial. This is one of two opportunities for Labour to break the narrative. The other is the manifesto launch. Also this week.
If Labour don’t move the polls decisively after these events, then, absent black swans, Boris gets his majority.
Labour won't move the polls after at best a draw in the debate last night, the manifesto launch could also equally have negative tax rises in it for ordinary voters eg a gift tax as much as net positives
BladeRunner was set today. Amazing how Philip K Dick’s visions have endured so well. He captured the banality and emptiness of the future like no other science fiction writer.
It’s hard to remember that Blade Runner originally presented from an 80s perspective a downbeat vision of the future rather the wildly optimistic and uplifting piece it appears to be from today’s point of view.
We were promised C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate!
I watched this from 12,000 miles away, but that lofty perspective hasn’t given me any greater insight. I saw a dull score draw like everyone else. Corbyn was more sincere, Boris more alpha.
Moving on: the next polls are quite crucial. This is one of two opportunities for Labour to break the narrative. The other is the manifesto launch. Also this week.
If Labour don’t move the polls decisively after these events, then, absent black swans, Boris gets his majority.
From Antarctica?! Dedication, sir.
I am not in Antarctica. I am, however, a very very very long way away. Bracingly so.
I watched this from 12,000 miles away, but that lofty perspective hasn’t given me any greater insight. I saw a dull score draw like everyone else. Corbyn was more sincere, Boris more alpha.
Moving on: the next polls are quite crucial. This is one of two opportunities for Labour to break the narrative. The other is the manifesto launch. Also this week.
If Labour don’t move the polls decisively after these events, then, absent black swans, Boris gets his majority.
From Antarctica?! Dedication, sir.
I am not in Antarctica. I am, however, a very very very long way away. Bracingly so.
What no "sensible" Labour supporter has explained thus far:
Why on earth would the EU27 renegotiate a Brexit deal with a Corbyn government in 3 days, 3 months or even 3 years knowing that the majority of the cabinet has already stated their intention to campaign for remain i.e. against the new deal in any subsequent referendum. It simply makes no sense and I certainly cannot see President Macron sanctioning it. More likely the EU would insist either a Corbyn government ratifies Boris' deal or puts it up against remain as the options in a second referendum.
The changes Labour proposes will principally affect the political declaration, which is not legally binding, and move the direction of travel for the final deal towards closer alignment which is what the EU wants. The EU will always be happy to renegotiate the deal if it is in a direction that they like - that after all is why they were happy to renegotiate the deal with Johnson, since the revised arrangements for NI were more or less what the EU had proposed in the first place.
I don't know if I am considered "sensible" but I hope this explanation will be deemed sufficient.
Well in that case why bother with the renegotiation and not just go straight to a referendum? Given that Labour (in power) could just repudiate the political declaration and pursuing of its objectives unilaterally.
I suppose they want to give the electorate a clear and honest choice between a deal that Labour would implement and Remain. For that they need a deal including PD that accurately describes the intended direction of travel, rather than presenting the Tories' deal and saying that this isn't actually what they will implement. If this is such a relevant question for Labour, then let's also ask why Johnson renegotiated the deal? After all, in an FTA (which he claims can be negotiated in a few months) the backstop is rendered redundant, so why couldn't he have just signed up to May's deal?
Well the obvious answer to that is that they (crazily IMO) want no deal to remain as an option. The argument being that the Customs Union backstop gives the EU no incentive to negotiate in good faith (since it is unlikely that a trade deal will be better for EU-UK specific trade than just retaining the customs union)
BladeRunner was set today. Amazing how Philip K Dick’s visions have endured so well. He captured the banality and emptiness of the future like no other science fiction writer.
I discovered yesterday that a very close friend of 35+ years hasn't seen Blade Runner. It feels...weird.
I note that Labour leaders almost always beat Tory ones on this hands down.
I think it just means "not posh" or perhaps in some way "normal", but there's something paternalistic about it too, so not wholly positive.
I think it reflects the question from the ?care worker? who said you've both lived comfortable lives, why would either of you understand poverty? Johnson waffled, Corbyn said part of his job was to listen to people. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that Corbyn is more familiar with the challenges of low incomes than Johnson. Whether that matters is of course something for voters to decide.
Corbyn for all his faults comes across as having genuine empathy for other people and the issues they face on a daily basis . I think that does matter to people .
His problem is that his answer to the ills of today would leave far more people in poverty.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
It would make no difference whatsoever. They have others.
I’m assuming all the Tory twitter accounts are verified as associated accounts with Twitter.
If one gets suspended then they all get suspended.
Twitter have already said this shouldn't happen again and moved on.
Twitter are not going to get into a political firestorm by suspending the governing parties accounts during a General Election.
Especially as on current polls the Tories will get a majority and have full lawmaking powers after on social media. (Though you get far more swing voters on Facebook and Instagram than Twitter anyway)
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
Loss of verified status is not suspending the account. It is just removing the blue tick. The blue tick exists to protect users from impersonators and/or confusion with parody accounts.
However not having it is obviously a problem because protection from impersonation is actually a valuable thing.
I note that Labour leaders almost always beat Tory ones on this hands down.
I think it just means "not posh" or perhaps in some way "normal", but there's something paternalistic about it too, so not wholly positive.
I think it reflects the question from the ?care worker? who said you've both lived comfortable lives, why would either of you understand poverty? Johnson waffled, Corbyn said part of his job was to listen to people. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that Corbyn is more familiar with the challenges of low incomes than Johnson. Whether that matters is of course something for voters to decide.
Corbyn for all his faults comes across as having genuine empathy for other people and the issues they face on a daily basis . I think that does matter to people .
I don't think he understands the visceral fear/experience of running out of money that many experience and why that might make people he claims to be trying to help wary of extravagant spending promises.
BladeRunner was set today. Amazing how Philip K Dick’s visions have endured so well. He captured the banality and emptiness of the future like no other science fiction writer.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
As an attempt to deceive using Lolz as an excuse.
Personally it's not fair game. A personal account can be used for the Lolz but business accounts should remain professional.
Who's being deceived?
Anyone who follows the account almost certainly knows what CCHQ stands for and it still said CCHQ.
If it wasn't so widely by critics then who else would have seen it?
I quite often misread it for GCHQ. So I'm thinking if those impartial boffins in Cheltenham are saying this...
If someone thinks that they are going to swayed by great many things that are not true. CCHQ have acted shittily, but someone fooled like that was already fooled by something equally silly.
Depressingly it suggests politics is now about maximising the the number of people who can be fooled for as much time as possible. That was always an element of course, but now it seems to be the primary moving force.
I note that Labour leaders almost always beat Tory ones on this hands down.
I think it just means "not posh" or perhaps in some way "normal", but there's something paternalistic about it too, so not wholly positive.
I think it reflects the question from the ?care worker? who said you've both lived comfortable lives, why would either of you understand poverty? Johnson waffled, Corbyn said part of his job was to listen to people. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that Corbyn is more familiar with the challenges of low incomes than Johnson. Whether that matters is of course something for voters to decide.
Corbyn for all his faults comes across as having genuine empathy for other people and the issues they face on a daily basis . I think that does matter to people .
I don't think he understands the visceral fear/experience of running out of money that many experience and why that might make people he claims to be trying to help wary of extravagant spending promises.
I agree with that. Corbyn has had a safe public sector job all his life. he is no more in touch with the lives of ordinary people than Johnson, or even Lord Snooty
I watched this from 12,000 miles away, but that lofty perspective hasn’t given me any greater insight. I saw a dull score draw like everyone else. Corbyn was more sincere, Boris more alpha.
Moving on: the next polls are quite crucial. This is one of two opportunities for Labour to break the narrative. The other is the manifesto launch. Also this week.
If Labour don’t move the polls decisively after these events, then, absent black swans, Boris gets his majority.
Labour won't move the polls after at best a draw in the debate last night, the manifesto launch could also equally have negative tax rises in it for ordinary voters eg a gift tax as much as net positives
Alternatively: Much of the Tory lead is down to people being scared of Corbyn rather than liking the Conservatives. A draw in the debate might be a sign that enough people start thinking "Corbyn isn't the devil incarnate after all" and the Tory lead evaporates. Not saying it's likely to happen, but it seems possible.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspectivorked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
It would make no difference whatsoever. They have others.
I’m assuming all the Tory twitter accounts are verified as associated accounts with Twitter.
If one gets suspended then they all get suspended.
Twitter have already said this shouldn't happen again and moved on.
Twitter are not going to get into a political firestorm by suspending the governing parties accounts during a General Election.
Especially as on current polls the Tories will get a majority and have full lawmaking powers after on social media. (Though you get far more swing voters on Facebook and Instagram than Twitter anyway)
This ridiculous twitter thing is the very definition of village tittle-tattle. 99.9999% of the country won’t give the tiniest quantum of a fuck.
It was presumably done to provoke, and burn off Labour energy, into the heat death of the Twittersphere. In that endeavor it is working.
I watched this from 12,000 miles away, but that lofty perspective hasn’t given me any greater insight. I saw a dull score draw like everyone else. Corbyn was more sincere, Boris more alpha.
Moving on: the next polls are quite crucial. This is one of two opportunities for Labour to break the narrative. The other is the manifesto launch. Also this week.
If Labour don’t move the polls decisively after these events, then, absent black swans, Boris gets his majority.
Labour won't move the polls after at best a draw in the debate last night, the manifesto launch could also equally have negative tax rises in it for ordinary voters eg a gift tax as much as net positives
Alternatively: Much of the Tory lead is down to people being scared of Corbyn rather than liking the Conservatives. A draw in the debate might be a sign that enough people start thinking "Corbyn isn't the devil incarnate after all" and the Tory lead evaporates. Not saying it's likely to happen, but it seems possible.
I think they’re more scared of Corbyn/McDonnell policies than Corbyn himself. And anyway, it’s not like 2017 when this was the first time the public had got a good look at him outside of the media narrative. He had his “introduction to the people” moment two years ago. Since when they seem to have overwhelmingly made up their mind.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
Good point . The amount of the public who would know what that meant is minimal . The Tories really have reached rock bottom with their disgusting antics .
The main two things I remember from the 2017 campaign are:
1) the Labour party deliberately lying about the Conservative social care policy, by claiming it would force surviving spouses out of their homes 2) Labour pretending they were going to cancel all student debt, even though that wasn't in their manifesto and they knew it was undeliverable (as they later admitted)
The Tories muck about with their Twitter handle for one evening (leaving a clear reference in to CCHQ) and it's the worst thing anyone could ever do? What is wrong with you people?
One of the things that marks out a compulsive liar is that they lie about things that aren't important, as well as those that are. Johnson and the Conservatives just can't help themselves.
Collectively we lost our grip on this some time ago, and I don't see how we get it back, but it certainly doesn't involve picking and choosing which falsehoods we care about. I thought Peter Oborne wrote a good piece about it.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspectivorked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
It would make no difference whatsoever. They have others.
I’m assuming all the Tory twitter accounts are verified as associated accounts with Twitter.
If one gets suspended then they all get suspended.
Twitter have already said this shouldn't happen again and moved on.
Twitter are not going to get into a political firestorm by suspending the governing parties accounts during a General Election.
Especially as on current polls the Tories will get a majority and have full lawmaking powers after on social media. (Though you get far more swing voters on Facebook and Instagram than Twitter anyway)
This ridiculous twitter thing is the very definition of village tittle-tattle. 99.9999% of the country won’t give the tiniest quantum of a fuck.
It was presumably done to provoke, and burn off Labour energy, into the heat death of the Twittersphere. In that endeavor it is working.
Indeed, a political hacks story if ever there was one
If I was asked who won a debate I would answer based on who had made their argument the best not actually on what the specifics of the actual argument. I’m not surprised it was a draw because they were equally as bad.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
Good point . The amount of the public who would know what that meant is minimal . The Tories really have reached rock bottom with their disgusting antics .
The main two things I remember from the 2017 campaign are:
1) the Labour party deliberately lying about the Conservative social care policy, by claiming it would force surviving spouses out of their homes 2) Labour pretending they were going to cancel all student debt, even though that wasn't in their manifesto and they knew it was undeliverable (as they later admitted)
The Tories muck about with their Twitter handle for one evening (leaving a clear reference in to CCHQ) and it's the worst thing anyone could ever do? What is wrong with you people?
One of the things that marks out a compulsive liar is that they lie about things that aren't important, as well as those that are. Johnson and the Conservatives just can't help themselves.
Collectively we lost our grip on this some time ago, and I don't see how we get it back, but it certainly doesn't involve picking and choosing which falsehoods we care about. I thought Peter Oborne wrote a good piece about it.
Peter Oborne would be more convincing if he wasn’t a cretin.
What no "sensible" Labour supporter has explained thus far:
Why on earth would the EU27 renegotiate a Brexit deal with a Corbyn government in 3 days, 3 months or even 3 years knowing that the majority of the cabinet has already stated their intention to campaign for remain i.e. against the new deal in any subsequent referendum. It simply makes no sense and I certainly cannot see President Macron sanctioning it. More likely the EU would insist either a Corbyn government ratifies Boris' deal or puts it up against remain as the options in a second referendum.
The changes Labour proposes will principally affect the political declaration, which is not legally binding, and move the direction of travel for the final deal towards closer alignment which is what the EU wants. The EU will always be happy to renegotiate the deal if it is in a direction that they like - that after all is why they were happy to renegotiate the deal with Johnson, since the revised arrangements for NI were more or less what the EU had proposed in the first place.
I don't know if I am considered "sensible" but I hope this explanation will be deemed sufficient.
Well in that case why bother with the renegotiation and not just go straight to a referendum? Given that Labour (in power) could just repudiate the political declaration and pursuing of its objectives unilaterally.
I suppose they want to give the electorate a clear and honest choice between a deal that Labour would implement and Remain. For that they need a deal including PD that accurately describes the intended direction of travel, rather than presenting the Tories' deal and saying that this isn't actually what they will implement. If this is such a relevant question for Labour, then let's also ask why Johnson renegotiated the deal? After all, in an FTA (which he claims can be negotiated in a few months) the backstop is rendered redundant, so why couldn't he have just signed up to May's deal?
Well the obvious answer to that is that they (crazily IMO) want no deal to remain as an option. The argument being that the Customs Union backstop gives the EU no incentive to negotiate in good faith (since it is unlikely that a trade deal will be better for EU-UK specific trade than just retaining the customs union)
So what you're saying is that it's reasonable to make changes to the deal in order to frame the debate over the final deal and that this can be done quickly and easily if the EU's red lines aren't affected. On that basis I think you should agree that Labour's position is perfectly sensible. Thanks!
I watched this from 12,000 miles away, but that lofty perspective hasn’t given me any greater insight. I saw a dull score draw like everyone else. Corbyn was more sincere, Boris more alpha.
Moving on: the next polls are quite crucial. This is one of two opportunities for Labour to break the narrative. The other is the manifesto launch. Also this week.
If Labour don’t move the polls decisively after these events, then, absent black swans, Boris gets his majority.
Labour won't move the polls after at best a draw in the debate last night, the manifesto launch could also equally have negative tax rises in it for ordinary voters eg a gift tax as much as net positives
Alternatively: Much of the Tory lead is down to people being scared of Corbyn rather than liking the Conservatives. A draw in the debate might be a sign that enough people start thinking "Corbyn isn't the devil incarnate after all" and the Tory lead evaporates. Not saying it's likely to happen, but it seems possible.
If you hate Corbyn it is because of his left-wing policies mainly, that will not change and if you want Brexit you will be voting Tory to deliver it, that will not change either
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspectivorked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
It would make no difference whatsoever. They have others.
I’m assuming all the Tory twitter accounts are verified as associated accounts with Twitter.
If one gets suspended then they all get suspended.
Twitter have already said this shouldn't happen again and moved on.
Twitter are not going to get into a political firestorm by suspending the governing parties accounts during a General Election.
Especially as on current polls the Tories will get a majority and have full lawmaking powers after on social media. (Though you get far more swing voters on Facebook and Instagram than Twitter anyway)
This ridiculous twitter thing is the very definition of village tittle-tattle. 99.9999% of the country won’t give the tiniest quantum of a fuck.
It was presumably done to provoke, and burn off Labour energy, into the heat death of the Twittersphere. In that endeavor it is working.
A pledge which appears to have aa purpose rather than to be spending for spending's sake. Although 20000 teachers amounts to about half a teacher per school. I'd like to see investment in better teachers, rather than just more teachers. Together with some determination to get rid of the bad ones. But this is a start.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
As an attempt to deceive using Lolz as an excuse.
Personally it's not fair game. A personal account can be used for the Lolz but business accounts should remain professional.
Who's being deceived?
Anyone who follows the account almost certainly knows what CCHQ stands for and it still said CCHQ.
If it wasn't so widely by critics then who else would have seen it?
I quite often misread it for GCHQ. So I'm thinking if those impartial boffins in Cheltenham are saying this...
If someone thinks that they are going to swayed by great many things that are not true. CCHQ have acted shittily, but someone fooled like that was already fooled by something equally silly.
Depressingly it suggests politics is now about maximising the the number of people who can be fooled for as much time as possible. That was always an element of course, but now it seems to be the primary moving force.
Politics = maximising the the number of people who can be fooled for as much time as possible. T'was always thus.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
Loss of verified status is not suspending the account. It is just removing the blue tick. The blue tick exists to protect users from impersonators and/or confusion with parody accounts.
However not having it is obviously a problem because protection from impersonation is actually a valuable thing.
'Intentionally misleading people' seems to be spot on.
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspectivorked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
It would make no difference whatsoever. They have others.
I’m assuming all the Tory twitter accounts are verified as associated accounts with Twitter.
If one gets suspended then they all get suspended.
Twitter have already said this shouldn't happen again and moved on.
Twitter are not going to get into a political firestorm by suspending the governing parties accounts during a General Election.
Especially as on current polls the Tories will get a majority and have full lawmaking powers after on social media. (Though you get far more swing voters on Facebook and Instagram than Twitter anyway)
This ridiculous twitter thing is the very definition of village tittle-tattle. 99.9999% of the country won’t give the tiniest quantum of a fuck.
It was presumably done to provoke, and burn off Labour energy, into the heat death of the Twittersphere. In that endeavor it is working.
bit early for a dead cat
Wasn’t technically a dead cat. More a decoy mouse, heading under the fridge of irrelevance, for the Labour cat to pursue. Meanwhile the clock ticks to Dec 12.
I watched this from 12,000 miles away, but that lofty perspective hasn’t given me any greater insight. I saw a dull score draw like everyone else. Corbyn was more sincere, Boris more alpha.
Moving on: the next polls are quite crucial. This is one of two opportunities for Labour to break the narrative. The other is the manifesto launch. Also this week.
If Labour don’t move the polls decisively after these events, then, absent black swans, Boris gets his majority.
I agree with that, and I'd add that I don't expect the manifesto to change much - they don't as a rule, though last time the Tory press stupidly highlighted things they thought would be unpopular which people rather liked.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
It would make no difference whatsoever. They have others.
I’m assuming all the Tory twitter accounts are verified as associated accounts with Twitter.
If one gets suspended then they all get suspended.
Twitter have already said this shouldn't happen again and moved on.
Twitter are not going to get into a political firestorm by suspending the governing parties accounts during a General Election.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Why you spend your credibility defending this stuff is beyond me. In an era of social media fakery and politicians like Trump shitting all over the truth it is not where the Conservative party should be.
Because I’m not
People lose perspective
Rebranding yourself as “factcheckUK” for an evening while leaving your twitter handle unchanged is not “shitting all over the truth” or “fake news”
It’s as truthful as “45 days to save the NHS”
People are getting way too excited. Both Boris and Corbyn have lied about things that matter. That’s what they should be judged on not trash like this.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
As an attempt to deceive using Lolz as an excuse.
Personally it's not fair game. A personal account can be used for the Lolz but business accounts should remain professional.
Who's being deceived?
Anyone who follows the account almost certainly knows what CCHQ stands for and it still said CCHQ.
If it wasn't so widely by critics then who else would have seen it?
Yes everyone who follows the account is not deceived but anyone who sees a retweet or like IS deceived as they don't know what the account actually is.
Because everyone with the word Factcheck in their name is automatically a source of neutrality. If you believe that you're insanely gullible.
Has anyone had a look at 'Factcheck Paton' who was so outraged that he or she posted this?
I watched this from 12,000 miles away, but that lofty perspective hasn’t given me any greater insight. I saw a dull score draw like everyone else. Corbyn was more sincere, Boris more alpha.
Moving on: the next polls are quite crucial. This is one of two opportunities for Labour to break the narrative. The other is the manifesto launch. Also this week.
If Labour don’t move the polls decisively after these events, then, absent black swans, Boris gets his majority.
Labour won't move the polls after at best a draw in the debate last night, the manifesto launch could also equally have negative tax rises in it for ordinary voters eg a gift tax as much as net positives
Alternatively: Much of the Tory lead is down to people being scared of Corbyn rather than liking the Conservatives. A draw in the debate might be a sign that enough people start thinking "Corbyn isn't the devil incarnate after all" and the Tory lead evaporates. Not saying it's likely to happen, but it seems possible.
I think they’re more scared of Corbyn/McDonnell policies than Corbyn himself. And anyway, it’s not like 2017 when this was the first time the public had got a good look at him outside of the media narrative. He had his “introduction to the people” moment two years ago. Since when they seem to have overwhelmingly made up their mind.
I partly agree with the second point, although I also think most people are just not thinking that much about politics outside of when they actually go and vote, so I still think there is some upside for Labour in Corbyn being seen more.
Personally I'm not seeing the enthusiasm for Corbyn that there was during the campaign in 2017, but on the other hand I am seeing much more animosity to Johnson than there was to May (this is just in my personal bubble).
On the policies, I'm not sure. I think we have to wait for the manifesto, and how well Labour can present their policies as not-scary.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
As an attempt to deceive using Lolz as an excuse.
Personally it's not fair game. A personal account can be used for the Lolz but business accounts should remain professional.
Who's being deceived?
Anyone who follows the account almost certainly knows what CCHQ stands for and it still said CCHQ.
If it wasn't so widely by critics then who else would have seen it?
Yes everyone who follows the account is not deceived but anyone who sees a retweet or like IS deceived as they don't know what the account actually is.
Because everyone with the word Factcheck in their name is automatically a source of neutrality. If you believe that you're insanely gullible.
Has anyone had a look at 'Factcheck Paton' who was so outraged that he or she posted this?
I’m not sure the debates are really about the debates anymore.
They’re about generating headlines and soundbites for wider social and MSM dissemination.
Thats true, but the frustrating thing, as per the public view in the header, is in their defence Boris and Corbyn showed willingness to actually debate. They wanted to come back on one another, they didnt interrupt too much, they seem like in the right format they would have debated a bit more.
Double length No audience No mention of who asked the question (it can get revealed later if people want to be sure the broadcaster did not write it) or just set topics and let them at it.
Yep, the public (rather than the broadcasters or the spin machines) would be much better served by a three-hour debate with very little moderation and allowing the participants to actually debate each other.
What no "sensible" Labour supporter has explained thus far:
Why on earth would the EU27 renegotiate a Brexit deal with a Corbyn government in 3 days, 3 months or even 3 years knowing that the majority of the cabinet has already stated their intention to campaign for remain i.e. against the new deal in any subsequent referendum. It simply makes no sense and I certainly cannot see President Macron sanctioning it. More likely the EU would insist either a Corbyn government ratifies Boris' deal or puts it up against remain as the options in a second referendum.
I don't know what you class as sensible, but I'm very familiar with EU politics. They would be pleased with either outcome if the choice was Remain vs customs union, and have said repeatedly that a customs union and regulatory alignment was on offer and could be concluded very quickly. The case forthe deal would be that it removes us from the political union which some dislike while keeping us in the economic union, and solving the Irish issue at the same time (because no customs border is needed anywhere).
Brexiters don't like either alternative (because they say alignment means "vassal state") but the EU would certainly prefer either to Boris's deal, which will simply prolong the agony with years of trade haggling.
What they wouldn’t like is Corbyn’s coalition losing a landslide 2 years later and the Tories renegotiating a new exit deal. It’s just wasting years for this country. Business does not want more delay and another referendum.
Jo Swinson’s reception at the CBI on Monday demonstrates that business wants to stay in the EU.
That the CBI membership - which is multinational - wants to
If you talk to the IoD or FSB you get a different perspective
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
Good point . The amount of the public who would know what that meant is minimal . The Tories really have reached rock bottom with their disgusting antics .
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
I would be very very surprised if Twitter did that. In fact I would go so far as to say they would be fucking idiots to.
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
I would be very very surprised if Twitter did that. In fact I would go so far as to say they would be fucking idiots to.
People, try and find someone who will defend you like Charles defends the establishment
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
As an attempt to deceive using Lolz as an excuse.
Personally it's not fair game. A personal account can be used for the Lolz but business accounts should remain professional.
Who's being deceived?
Anyone who follows the account almost certainly knows what CCHQ stands for and it still said CCHQ.
If it wasn't so widely by critics then who else would have seen it?
I quite often misread it for GCHQ. So I'm thinking if those impartial boffins in Cheltenham are saying this...
It’s an attempt to deceive, but entirely to be expected from a party led by a man who is incapable of telling the truth. The problem for the Tories is that while they’ll win the election with ease thanks to who they’re up against, in the end the lies catch up with you.
They included CCHQ clearly in the bio
“Fact checking” is a well accepted term not a brand.
Charles, you’re so silly. Brilliant stuff.
I keep things in perspective
It was a cheeky thing to do. Trolling slightly, and having a bit of juvenile fun.
It was clearly CCHQ - anyone who claims they were deceived clearly believe what they read in the web without checking sources.
But either way it’s really not worth getting worked up about. Ephemera.
Who knows (apart from us on PB) what CCHQ means? Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
If it wasn’t an attempt to deceive, why did they do it?
For the Lolz?
Yes. And it's working.
Might not work if they have their account suspended.
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
It would make no difference whatsoever. They have others.
I’m assuming all the Tory twitter accounts are verified as associated accounts with Twitter.
If one gets suspended then they all get suspended.
Twitter have already said this shouldn't happen again and moved on.
Twitter are not going to get into a political firestorm by suspending the governing parties accounts during a General Election.
I’m not sure the debates are really about the debates anymore.
They’re about generating headlines and soundbites for wider social and MSM dissemination.
Thats true, but the frustrating thing, as per the public view in the header, is in their defence Boris and Corbyn showed willingness to actually debate. They wanted to come back on one another, they didnt interrupt too much, they seem like in the right format they would have debated a bit more.
Double length No audience No mention of who asked the question (it can get revealed later if people want to be sure the broadcaster did not write it) or just set topics and let them at it.
Yep, the public (rather than the broadcasters or the spin machines) would be much better served by a three-hour debate with very little moderation and allowing the participants to actually debate each other.
Sadly it’s probably never going to happen.
We would honestly learn more about their suitability to be PM if they just played a televised game of Settlers of Catan. Jo would be really good at it. Boris would cheat unsuccessfully. Corbo would be too busy checking the box to see if any of the art was done by jews.
Lets be Totally Honest here, Corbyn was more serous about this debate then Johnson ,he spoke directly a Question was asked and he was Honest( I hope) But Johnson is NOT a good debater he speaks in fast short sentences and talks in a Gibberish manor, BUT he is still going to win with a Landslide, I truly believe Corbyn has been trashed by the media and I feel a little unfairly ,people seem to just repeat what Johnson says (Parrot Fashion) but do not have a clear opinion themselves, how come ALL the Financial Barrons including the Bank of England state that this Country will fall way behind the rest of the World ,these are the True Experts and not people who no nothing but a few things about what is truly going to happen, the Torys under this Prime-minister will simply take us into a Deep void and I think that is very sad for us all....
Comments
Hmm...
Mocking, rather than appreciative.
I can’t help it if you feel the people are wrong. They still have more votes than you.
And bugger up the funding of the NHS.
Even so every time I see it I read it as GCHQ.
1. The Twitter name change has had its intended effect. It was designed to make the lefty idiots talk about something other than the debate because Bozza was in a no win position. Winning 51/49 isn't really a win given the level of expectations. Now the papers and twitterati are talking about something other than Jez doing a lot better than expected.
2. In addition, it became clear that Jez has no answer on brexit, this is not going to be a repeat of 2017. In 2017 both were talking about rival types of deal and implementation of the result. This time Bozza goes in with the deal in hand, Jez will do something else, something that doesn't respect the 2016 vote.
3. "Get brexit done" is as good as the 2015 "long term economic plan" and that was the backbone of the last majority we won. It's much better than "strong and stable". Labour doesn't have a strapline so no one knows what their campaign is for, other than not letting Bozza sell the NHS to Trump (which most people don't believe anyway) and putting BT out of business.
4. Finally, the quality of the debate was piss poor. The 2010 "I agree with Nick" is still the high water mark of leader debates in this country. Followed by Dave smashing Ed to pieces in 2015. Everything else has been dogshit.
Overall, Jez had one chance, and his supporters are all talking about some Tory Twitter bullshit instead of how he did better than most people expected.
For the Lolz?
And considering the handle is CCHQ Press that's what they call themselves all the time and not just yesterday.
Personally it's not fair game. A personal account can be used for the Lolz but business accounts should remain professional.
Anyone who follows the account almost certainly knows what CCHQ stands for and it still said CCHQ.
If it wasn't so widely by critics then who else would have seen it?
Getting the blue tick is conditional on not playing games like this.
Just imagine if the Tory twitter account is suspended for the duration of the campaign.
Double length
No audience
No mention of who asked the question (it can get revealed later if people want to be sure the broadcaster did not write it) or just set topics and let them at it.
1) the Labour party deliberately lying about the Conservative social care policy, by claiming it would force surviving spouses out of their homes
2) Labour pretending they were going to cancel all student debt, even though that wasn't in their manifesto and they knew it was undeliverable (as they later admitted)
The Tories muck about with their Twitter handle for one evening (leaving a clear reference in to CCHQ) and it's the worst thing anyone could ever do? What is wrong with you people?
If one gets suspended then they all get suspended.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/105170/most-tory-members-believe-islam-threat
Conservatives = islamophobes. The party is riddled with scumbags.
Has anyone had a look at 'Factcheck Paton' who was so outraged that he or she posted this?
Is this what a neutral factchecker looks like?
https://twitter.com/stephenpaton134/status/1195755189912899586
All it has done is generate a negative story.
Moving on: the next polls are quite crucial. This is one of two opportunities for Labour to break the narrative. The other is the manifesto launch. Also this week.
If Labour don’t move the polls decisively after these events, then, absent black swans, Boris gets his majority.
Twitter are not going to get into a political firestorm by suspending the governing parties accounts during a General Election.
If this is such a relevant question for Labour, then let's also ask why Johnson renegotiated the deal? After all, in an FTA (which he claims can be negotiated in a few months) the backstop is rendered redundant, so why couldn't he have just signed up to May's deal?
Loss of verified status is not suspending the account. It is just removing the blue tick. The blue tick exists to protect users from impersonators and/or confusion with parody accounts.
However not having it is obviously a problem because protection from impersonation is actually a valuable thing.
Much of the Tory lead is down to people being scared of Corbyn rather than liking the Conservatives. A draw in the debate might be a sign that enough people start thinking "Corbyn isn't the devil incarnate after all" and the Tory lead evaporates. Not saying it's likely to happen, but it seems possible.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50480498
It was presumably done to provoke, and burn off Labour energy, into the heat death of the Twittersphere. In that endeavor it is working.
Collectively we lost our grip on this some time ago, and I don't see how we get it back, but it certainly doesn't involve picking and choosing which falsehoods we care about. I thought Peter Oborne wrote a good piece about it.
I'd like to see investment in better teachers, rather than just more teachers. Together with some determination to get rid of the bad ones. But this is a start.
People lose perspective
Rebranding yourself as “factcheckUK” for an evening while leaving your twitter handle unchanged is not “shitting all over the truth” or “fake news”
It’s as truthful as “45 days to save the NHS”
People are getting way too excited. Both Boris and Corbyn have lied about things that matter. That’s what they should be judged on not trash like this.
It’s Parkinson’s Theory of Triviality at work
Personally I'm not seeing the enthusiasm for Corbyn that there was during the campaign in 2017, but on the other hand I am seeing much more animosity to Johnson than there was to May (this is just in my personal bubble).
On the policies, I'm not sure. I think we have to wait for the manifesto, and how well Labour can present their policies as not-scary.
Sadly it’s probably never going to happen.
If you talk to the IoD or FSB you get a different perspective
Which is rock bottom and disgusting?
I think your morality gauge needs tuning
Don’t leave us hanging!
Next time it will be Fact-check CCHQ