View previous topic | View next topic

Election Lies

Page 1 of 10
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

dr.bob
1335528.  Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:36 am Reply with quote

This is a thread to post any lies you spot any minister telling during the current election. Hopefully this thread will be a non-partisan factual highlighting of lies from politicians of any stripe. Maybe we'll see at the end whether one party was grossly over-represented in this thread.

 
dr.bob
1335529.  Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:39 am Reply with quote

I'll start things off with one from the Brexit thread.

Boris Johnson has repeatedly claimed that the Brexit extension is costing the UK taxpayer large sums of money compared with if we had left with a deal at the end of October.

This is a big fat lie.

The Withdrawal Agreement outlines the so-called "divorce bill" already agreed with the EU. It has been agreed that the UK will continue to pay its regular EU subscription fee until the end of the transition period, currently set as the end of 2020. Thus, a Brexit extension until January 2020 is not costing the UK taxpayer one penny more in extra payments.

https://fullfact.org/europe/one-billion-a-month/

 
dr.bob
1335532.  Wed Nov 06, 2019 9:55 am Reply with quote

This morning, the Welsh secretary Alun Cairns resigned his post over allegations that he lied about knowing of a former aide sabotaging a rape trial.

For anyone who (like me 24 hours ago) is not familiar with this case, it involves a man called Ross England. He has previously worked for Mr Cairns in his constituency office.

In April of last year, Mr England was called as a witness in a trial in which a friend of his was accused of rape. When Mr England was giving evidence, the judge made it very clear that evidence of the sexual history of the victim was inadmissible. Despite this, Mr England claimed that he had had a casual sexual relationship with the victim.

According to reports the judge said to Mr England "Why did you say that? Are you completely stupid?" He went on to say "You have managed singlehanded, and I have no doubt it was deliberate on your part, to sabotage this trial" and eventually told him to "Get out of my court".

The defendant, one James Hackett, was subsequently convicted of rape at a retrial. Hence the actions of Mr England would have served to put the victim through months of extra stress as the trial collapsed and was re-tried. I think most people can agree that Mr England is pretty much the dictionary definition of an absolute cunt.

In December of last year, Mr England was selected as a Conservative candidate for the Welsh Assembly to stand in the elections in 2021. Last week news of his role in the rape trial broke and the Welsh Secretary was asked why he had chosen to field an absolute cunt as a candidate. His excuse was that he was unaware of Mr England's absolute cuntery until the story broke last week.

It now turns out this was a big fat lie.

BBC Wales uncovered evidence that Mr Cairns received an email about the whole matter back in August last year, before Mr England was chosen as a candidate. Mr Cairns this morning took the usual action of any innocent man with nothing to hide: he resigned his ministerial position and ran away.

Interestingly he did this mere hours before Boris stood outside Number 10 and made his opening statement for the coming election. Guess which story the media are going to lead with.

 
suze
1335558.  Wed Nov 06, 2019 12:58 pm Reply with quote

There is no word as yet on whether or not Mr Cairns will defend his seat in Vale of Glamorgan. He doesn't have a huge majority, and it's a seat which was on Labour's target list even before the incumbent was found to be associating with absolute cunts.

The Labour candidate is "classic Labour"; she's from Aberfan and is a trade union official. I suspect that Belinda Loveluck - for that is her name - can hardly belinda her loveluck right now ...

 
crissdee
1335567.  Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:12 pm Reply with quote

If she is a native of that poor village, I am guessing that she is either significantly older/younger than me, or very lucky. I am given to understand there are few if any natives of Aberfan around my age alive there.

 
suze
1335571.  Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:58 pm Reply with quote

I discover that Ms Loveluck was at secondary school in Merthyr from 1981 to 1987, which would place her in her late 40s. Her candidate biography makes no mention of the events which occurred in Aberfan in 1966. Whether that's because she'd rather not talk about it, or because her parents came to the area a bit later, is for her to know.

I also discover that she works for the union of which I'm a member. That very vaguely links into the other piece of election-related news that I've heard today, which concerns the issue of polling stations and school plays.

In theory, returning officers have the power to commandeer state sector primary schools for use as polling stations; headteachers do not have the right to say "Actually, no". That power is almost never used in practice, and returning officers have usually taken headteachers at their word if they have said "Health and Safety and/or Safeguarding issue, we don't think so".

Even so, a large number of primary schools still are used as polling stations. To what extent there really is a Health and Safety and/or Safeguarding issue here is for the reader to decide, but both the teaching unions and parent groups have on occasion campaigned for schools not to be used.

Every time there's an election, local newspapers with nothing better to write about have written about this issue - and the responses to such articles have been entirely predictable. Some say that there is definitely an issue with "strangers being near our children", some say that's nonsense, and some say that it's just an excuse for teachers to have yet another day off.

But it was threatening to come to a head on this occasion because of the spectre of schools being unable to stage their Nativity plays because the premises are being used as polling stations. The government knew that would be dreadful PR, and so the Minister has told returning officers to avoid using schools as polling stations.

I won't hold my breath for a change in law such that schools can no longer be commandeered, but it is clear that the government now accepts that the use of schools is not ideal.

As for where we will be voting, well right now God doesn't know. We usually vote at a church hall, but it has informed the returning officer that it is not available because Christmas - and church halls are private property and thus cannot be commandeeered.

 
Celebaelin
1335577.  Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:16 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
I'll start things off with one from the Brexit thread.

Boris Johnson has repeatedly claimed that the Brexit extension is costing the UK taxpayer large sums of money compared with if we had left with a deal at the end of October.

This is a big fat lie

The assertion is about the continued uncertainty I suspect; I doubt that this can be definitively established but it seems quite likely.

 
barbados
1335587.  Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:51 am Reply with quote

Particularly since the first statement, on October 28th, according to official figures, isnít a lie. And if you listen to the 2nd one it sounds very much like a misspeak

 
dr.bob
1335606.  Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:23 am Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
The assertion is about the continued uncertainty I suspect; I doubt that this can be definitively established but it seems quite likely.


I think we can agree that the continued Brexit uncertainty is definitely having a negative effect on the British economy, and that is costing the taxpayer money. I think we can also agree that it's very difficult to put a precise figure on the amount that the uncertainty is costing the taxpayer.

Therefore, can you really claim that it's "quite likely" that the amount that the uncertainty is costing the taxpayer just happens by chance to be almost exactly (one reading of*) the figure we pay to the EU each month?


*As barbados has pointed out on the Brexit thread, the figure of £1bn per month is one reading of how much we pay to the EU depending on how much of the money that flows back to the UK from the EU you wish to ignore.

 
Celebaelin
1335664.  Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:47 pm Reply with quote

I was saying that the notion that the claim was related to uncertainty was quite likely to be so. There are fewer employment opportunities and companies are seeking to secure markets elsewhere (or they should be) which necessarily takes time and outlay plus there's the cost of familiarisation with the new bureaucratic hoops to be jumped through when (and if) Brexit occurs. This price is being borne by businesses which in turn makes them less competitive and of course less profitable. The inevitable impact on confidence levels due to this and the legislative uncertainties and the above considerations leads to decreased average income levels and by reducing tax revenues via negative effects on volumes of trade, individual and business incomes in some sectors the uncertainty itself makes the country as a whole poorer.

The cost of this uncertainty is additional to the amount paid by the HMG to the EU is it not? If I am right in my belief that this outgoing has not as yet ceased then the uncertainty and delay is definitively costing the UK Government money.

Quote:
In 2018 the UKís gross contribution to the EU amounted to £20.0 billion; however, this amount of money was never actually transferred to the EU. It is best thought of as a theoretical liability.

Source: Office for National Statistics

So yes and no; the money is presumably being put aside against the possibility that it may need to be paid.

 
barbados
1335671.  Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:17 pm Reply with quote

I don't think you can measure the impact of the uncertainty. We know there is an impact, but how can we possible say that investment is down by 20p, £20, £200 or £20,000 becuase of that? All we can do is guess - using business models, but there is so much going on in the world how can you point at one particular event?

However going on what Johnson said (the big fat lie) on the 29th, what he said was truthful - you may dispute the figure, but he would have been given the official amount, not the amount that some argue it should be - however the difference is a result of money that goes back to the private sector so does the man on the Clapham omnibus really benefit from that money - or does he simply contribute his £166 per year?
On the 28th Johnson definitely says "another £1billion per month" and this appeats to be the area of contention (he doesn't repeat a lie by any stretch of the imagination) If you read what he says, then yep it is in black and white, however if you listen, it sounds more like a misspeak rather than a lie. His suggestion comes from the sentence
Quote:
They made it inevitable that the people of this country would be retained in the EU against their will for at least another three months, at a cost of another £1 billion a month
and the second use of the word "another" is stumbled out, with a small pause. Was it intentional? IT always will be for PDR and dr.bob, you can make your own mind up - its a ballache to get to the relevant part, but I think it's here a couple of minutes in

 
PDR
1335672.  Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:41 pm Reply with quote

Don't know why you've dragged me into this (I've been keeping away in the interests of harmony) but since you did...

We will never agree on what the cost paid to the EU is (be it gross, net, effective or implicit) because it's a matter of accountancy and how one draws the system boundary. Bit that is irrelevant to this discussion.

The trouble is you're missing the point - the BFL DrBob is talking about isn't the amount, it's the claim that the extension adds any cost AT ALL. This is completely untrue UNLESS the intention is to leave without a deal.

As long as we leave with a deal we will pay a "divorce settlement". This bill includes a lot of line items, but amongst them are our "membership fees" from now until the end of the transition period. The current extension only delays the start of the transition period - the end date remains the same. So the total amount we pay in "membership fees" between now and then is a fixed sum. If we delay the *start* of the transition period then we certainly have to keep paying our monthly fee (or whatever the mechanism is), but that amount will be deducted from the "divorce settlement" as a result. We've already seen this, in the way that the size of the severance bill has already dropped from £39Bn to around £33Bn (I think those are the numbers - I can't be arsed to look them up). So delaying the exit date without delaying the end of the transition period is utterly cash neutral.

The only thing that would change that would be if the intent was always to leave WITHOUT a deal, so that there would be no divorce bill to be paid. In that circumstance it would be true that every second we remain in the EU incurring membership fee liabilities costs us more money.

So there is definitely a Big Fat Lie here, but it could be one of two contenders. It's either:

1. Delaying the exit date without delaying the end of transition incurs extra cost for the UK. This is utterly and provably untrue.

2. We are incurring extra membership costs because the actual intention is to crash out without a deal. This would be true, biut only if the Government's repeated claims that this is NOT the primary intention are Big Fat Lies.

It's one or the other, and both options are BFLs - there is no third alternative.

Now I will go back to lurking on this issue in the interests of forum harmony because I made promises that I intent to keep.

PDR

 
barbados
1335673.  Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:46 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Don't know why you've dragged me into this (I've been keeping away in the interests of harmony) but since you did...

It was only because if he said night followed day, you would accuse him of lying, because there is obviously an evening inbetween.

 
barbados
1335674.  Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:52 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
The trouble is you're missing the point - the BFL DrBob is talking about isn't the amount, it's the claim that the extension adds any cost AT ALL. This is completely untrue UNLESS the intention is to leave without a deal.

I do get the point, the reason it has dragged on in the brexit thread is because I initially asked if the lie was the figure - because it wasn't. Then dr.bob went on about how the use of the figures that the ONS consider to be the official figures was "factually incorrect".
Back to this thread now, I would suggest that
a) we cannot tell the cost of the uncertainty (in response to Cel's point)
b) the statement made on the second occasion was not a lie, it was accurate.
c) the statement made on the first occasion was a misspeak.

 
Alexander Howard
1335685.  Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:49 am Reply with quote

If we are going to have a thread on all the lies to be told during the current UK election campaign, the hosts of this site will have to buy a few more TB of storage, even if we are abstemious and just catalogue LibDem leaflets.

 

Page 1 of 10
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group