We’re going to be right back where we started before all this happened, amusingly.

No, we won’t be, because the Tory MPs will have been purged of anyone who might stop or restrain the headbangers.

[ including Johnson’s own brother ]

Difference is, this time people know they are being lied to but are going to vote for it anyway.

Difference is, this time people know they are being lied to and refuse to admit it.

This is pretty damning of one party being more dishonest:

Only because of where you chose to end the quote. The line after is: “However, Labour’s supporters have been more likely to share unpaid-for electioneering posts than supporters of other parties.”. That number refers to paid ads only and Labour doesn’t need many paid ads because it has a gazzilion willing sharers.

I wonder why you chose to ring fence paid posts only?

Unless you want to argue that columns aren’t “journalism”.

A column is an opinion piece. Journalism involves doing some investigative work to ascertain the truth of what they’re publishing as news (or at least it should, this has kinda fallen by the wayside in recent years).

As a columnist I could write an article tomorrow saying that the Ford Focus is shit and walk away with £100 in my pocket. As a journalist I should be reporting recall notices, failure rates, poor customer satisfaction surveys…

Of course, a problem arises when both are presented equally and readers can’t tell the difference.

I wonder why you chose to ring fence paid posts only?

I shared that part as that was the part that was judging the parties and it was the parties we were discussing spreading lies, not their supporters who they don’t have control of.

And if Labour really had a gazillion willing supporters they wouldn’t be losing in the polls would they.

Just admit it OOB the Tories are worse than Labour ffs its as clear as day.

Owen Jones is a classic example of what’s wrong with the press. He’s a Labour Activist AND a Journalist. You can be one or the other IMHO, not both.

So where do you stand on being, say, the Mayor of London or an MP and writing fiction in the guise of a newspaper column?

What’s the difference? You’ve just given an example of *exactly* the same thing. Unless you want to argue that columns aren’t “journalism”.

A column is an opinion piece. Journalism involves doing some investigative work to ascertain the truth of what they’re publishing as news (or at least it should, this has kinda fallen by the wayside in recent years).

As a columnist I could write an article tomorrow saying that the Ford Focus is shit and walk away with £100 in my pocket. As a journalist I should be reporting recall notices, failure rates, poor customer satisfaction surveys…

Of course, a problem arises when both are presented equally and readers can’t tell the difference.

Ok, we’ll let Boris off the hook on this one then.

Because we expect to be able to hold the parties themselves to account & if they are paying for fake news to be spread that’s really quite serious

One party has few sharers so they have to pay to put their posts in front of people. Another party has plenty of willing sharers so they get the same exposure without paying. There’s no difference.

I shared that part as that was the part that was judging the parties and it was the parties we were discussing spreading lies, not their supporters who they don’t have control of.

Their supporters are sharing lies from the party itself. The party just isn’t paying for the exposure, they’re getting that for free.

Which makes sense – the lies only get shared by people who are debunking them.

That’s demonstrably not true. Look at the “on the other hand” post from a page or two back, or spend about 30 seconds on Facebook. Lisbon Treaty 2022, anyone? It’s rife.

People know they’re lies. They simply don’t care.

There’s no difference.

You don’t really believe that, do you?

If some Labour fan posts nonsense on here in this forum, you think that is the same as the Conservative Party paying to have adverts with proven lies in them appear on this site?

I don’t read the Sun regularly, but perhaps you should

I’d rather stick pins in my eyes, though I read the headlines of most newspapers near-daily. I’d far rather do my own research from a multitude of sources than read what a given newspaper wants me to believe.

I would rather you didn’t misgender me.

How exactly did I do that? (Not knowing your gender in the first place)

How exactly did I do that?

Their, they and them are now accepted as pronouns for someone who is non binary. I think that’s what mefty is referring to.

What’s the difference? You’ve just given an example of *exactly* the same thing. Unless you want to argue that columns aren’t “journalism”

The difference is one was paid to be the Mayor and an MP and was paid to be a journo. He was a known and acknowledged liar and did so in his column whenever it benefitted him.

Owen is a journo, that as far as I know is a labour activist in his spare time, who had managed to keep his newspaper job by not lying and stomping all over the line ethically. That he approaches stories from the perspective of a labour supporter is acceptable, especially as he makes no secret if it. He doesn’t pretend to be neutral while rubbishing the right.

I deliberately use pronouns like “they” in situations where I don’t know the gender of the person I’m addressing or referring to (when I remember to do so at least) precisely because they’re gender-agnostic words.

‘they’ used to be. Sadly not universally so anymore, depending on who exactly is reading ‘them’

Could have been worse, zee, Zay, see was an alternative.

guess if I’d said “he” no-one would have batted an eyelid

The odds of that being true seem in your favour. Every now and then it’ll be wrong.

And not forgetting the fact that after they were given away, the private owners have hiked up prices way beyond inflation despite a reduction in investment and quality of delivery. If there’s any theft of assets going on it’s the naked rip off of the public in the interests of private shareholders.

The problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of public assets to flog off cheap to your mates.

I actually put more faith in odds than opinion polls these days

Weren’t the odds for the 2017 election somewhat out?

Hung Parliament was below Conservative majority.

(Interesting analysis though.)

And not forgetting the fact that after they were given away, the private owners have hiked up prices way beyond inflation despite a reduction in investment and quality of delivery. If there’s any theft of assets going on it’s the naked rip off of the public in the interests of private shareholders.

Who allowed this to happen and who benefited from it? Ask Sid.

The very same people who will now vote this bunch back in.

I think direction of movement is a very useful indicator.

Their, they and them are now accepted as pronouns for someone who is non binary. I think that’s what mefty is referring to.

They are also acceptable pronouns where a persons gender is not known.

I hate quoting Webster but given it’s the source for most of the recent Google news it seems appropriate:

c —used to refer to a single person whose gender is intentionally not revealed

A student was found with a knife and a BB gun in their backpack Monday, district spokeswoman Renee Murphy confirmed. The student, whose name has not been released, will be disciplined according to district policies, Murphy said. They also face charges from outside law enforcement, she said.
— Olivia Krauth

d —used to refer to a single person whose gender identity is nonbinary (see NONBINARY sense c)

I knew certain things about … the person I was interviewing.… They had adopted their gender-neutral name a few years ago, when they began to consciously identify as nonbinary — that is, neither male nor female. They were in their late 20s, working as an event planner, applying to graduate school.
— Amy Harmon

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/they

Economist comes out for the Libdems:

Today it, (Labour) would seize 10% of large firms� equity, to be held in funds paying out mostly to the exchequer rather than to the workers who are meant to be the beneficiaries. It would phase in a four-day week, supposedly with no loss of pay. The list of industries to be nationalised seems only to grow. Drug patents could be forcibly licensed. The bill for a rapid increase in spending would fall on the rich and companies, whose tax burden would go from the lowest in the g7 to the highest. It is an attempt to deal with 21st-century problems using policies that failed in the 20th.

Nor has Mr Corbyn done anything to dampen concerns about his broader worldview. A critic of Western foreign policy and sympathiser with dictators in Iran and Venezuela who oppose it, he blamed nato for Russia�s invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Last year he suggested samples of a nerve agent used to poison a Russian former spy in Salisbury should be sent to Moscow, so Vladimir Putin could see if it was his. Under such a prime minister, Britain could not rely on receiving American intelligence. Nor has Mr Corbyn dealt with the anti-Semitism that has taken root in Labour on his watch. Some Remainers might swallow this as the price of a second Brexit referendum, which Mr Corbyn has at last promised. We have long argued for such a vote. Yet Mr Corbyn�s ruinous plans at home and bankrupt views abroad mean that this newspaper cannot support Labour.

The Conservatives, too, have grown scarier since 2017. Mr Johnson has ditched the Brexit deal negotiated by Theresa May and struck a worse one, in effect lopping off Northern Ireland so that Britain can leave the European Union�s customs union. The public are so sick of the whole fiasco that his promise to �get Brexit done� wins votes. But he would do no such thing (see article). After Britain had left the eu early next year, the hard work of negotiating a trade agreement would begin. Mr Johnson says he would do this by the end of 2020 or leave without one. No-deal is thus still on the table�and a real prospect, since getting a deal in less than a year looks hard. The best estimates suggest that leaving without a deal would make average incomes 8% lower than they would otherwise have been after ten years.

Brexit is not the only problem with Mr Johnson�s new-look Tories. He has purged moderates and accelerated the shift from an economically and socially liberal party into an economically interventionist and culturally conservative one. Angling for working-class, Leave-voting seats in the north, he has proposed extra state aid, buy-British government procurement and a sketchy tax-and-spending plan that does not add up. Also, he has absorbed the fatal lesson of the Brexit campaign: that there is no penalty for lying or breaking the rules. He promised not to suspend Parliament, then did; he promised not to extend the Brexit talks, then did. This chicanery corrodes trust in democracy. Like Mr Corbyn he has normalised prejudice, by displaying his own and failing to investigate it in his party (both men are thought racist by 30% of voters). For all these reasons this newspaper cannot support the Conservatives.

That leaves a low bar for the Liberal Democrats, and they clear it. They, too, have become more extreme since we backed them in 2017. Under a new leader, Jo Swinson, they have gone beyond the idea of a second referendum for an irresponsible promise to reverse Brexit unilaterally. This has deservedly backfired. Yet their economic approach�a moderate increase in spending, paid for by broad-based tax increases�is the most sensible of the main parties, and is the only one to be honest about the cost of an ageing society. On climate change and social policy they strike the best balance between ambition and realism. As last time, they are the only choice for anyone who rejects both the hard Brexit of the Conservatives and the hard-left plans of Labour.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/12/05/britains-nightmare-before-christmas