The Johnson Effect

[BillyStubbsTears]

They are still feeling it in the Tory party. They way he normalised the corruption of Truth.

Look at this from this morning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65737681


There AREN'T going to be 40 "new hospitals". But we will call refurbishments "new hospitals". Because that was the line that we all signed up to when the Liar in Chief was in No10.

Orwell would tear his hair out. Because he knew that the path to the collapse of democracy went through the debasement of language and the insistent denial of Objective Truth.

[redwine]

Yup, doubleplussungood.

[Colin C No.3]

I voted for Brexit because I was told we would be able to ‘protect our borders’.

Think I was sold a pup there.

For that reason & other lies that I accepted would come to fruition, I was a gullible fool to vote as I did.

[Bristol Red Rover]

Johnson took lying and deliberate misinformation pretty far, but then that is rife through all politics, and society in general. Has it really ever been any different? The media has changed through the ages, the power elites keeping the masses in place in whatever way possible has not. Sometimes disinformation serves that, sometimes more forceful means, as well as the classic divide and rule. Don't get fooled by any rose tinted view of the past.

[Bentley Bullet]

I doubt there has ever been a time when politicians didn't lie, but social media nowadays means they are under the spotlight 24/7, meaning anything and everything they say, either on or off the record is brought out in public, enabling people, like BST, to select and share those that suit their agenda.

[Donnywolf]

If there is any hope it lies with the Proles

It was true when George Orwell wrote,1984 , and ffs its true now

And though he didn't say this in that Book , Johnson IS a lying Kitson

[Hounslowrover]

I don't think politicians lied when asked questions, they just avoid giving an answer (as in  PMQs). Johnson took lying to a whole new level.

[Bentley Bullet]

If there is any hope it lies with the Proles

It was true when George Orwell wrote,1984 , and ffs its true now

And though he didn't say this in.tjat Book , Johnson is a lying Kitson

People who voted for Johnson knew he was a lying Kitson, just like people who will vote for Starmer know he is a lying Kitson.

[Bentley Bullet]

I don't think politicians lied when asked questions, they just avoid giving an answer (as in  PMQs). Johnson took lying to a whole new level.

No? https://fb.watch/kfBo8uYBZK/

[BillyStubbsTears]

Christ BB. Darren Grimes? Is that the dregs you've found at the bottom of your barrel?

[drfchound]

Does it matter, the important thing is what KS said.
I guess it’s ok though because, well, just because…….

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Let's see if the proper windfall tax materialises and pays for everything....

Btw I agree, a hospital to me is a full hospital not part of one.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And it goes on. This corruption of the idea of truth.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/07/03/keir-starmer-accused-lying-sue-gray-rules-labour/

Look at that headline.

"Keir Starmer accused of lying after claiming Sue Gray didn’t break rules"

That's pretty clear isn't it. Starter claimed she didn't break the rules, but that headline from a respect national paper gives a very strong message that she did.

The BBC was sending a similar message over the weekend too.

"Sue Gray broke civil service rules over Labour job" rang out the headline.

Pretty clear then isn't it, fit any non-political obsessive.

Gray broke the rules.

Starter lied.

Except...

After a lot of people complained to the BBC, they changed their headline to
"Sue Gray broke civil service rules over Labour job, government says"

And that gets to the nubs of the story.

Because what actually happened was this.

There was an entirely independent investigation into whether Sue Gray broke the rules by talking to Labour about role with them before she resigned as a leading civil servant.

That investigation found nothing untoward.

But that wasn't the news the Govt wanted.

So they held their own investigation. That's the Tory Govt, running its own investigation.

That investigation decided there was some evidence that she may have broken the rules.

That gets reported by the BBC original headline as a statement of fact. She broke the rules.

Then the Telegraph report it in even stronger terms. Starmer's accused of lying over the fact that she broke the rules.

Only...guess who is accusing him of lying? Yep: an unnamed Tory party source.

It's simply awful. The total disregard for simple, objective truth. It's trwatingvthectruth as something to be chopped up, reconstituted and repackaged to win an argument.

That's what this generation of Tory politicians and their lackeys have done.

[belton rover]

Misleading newspaper headlines are hardly down to ‘this generation of Tory politicians and their lackeys’.

[Colin C No.3]

Freddie Starr definitely didn’t eat a hamster. FACT.

[belton rover]

Exactly

[Branton Red]

Billy

Please could you provide a link to the "entirely independent investigation into whether Sue Gray broke the rules by talking to Labour about role with them before she resigned as a leading civil servant. That investigation found nothing untoward."

Do you mean this one? www.gov.uk/government/publications/gray-sue-second-permanent-secretary-at-the-department-for-levelling-up-housing-and-communities-and-the-cabinet-office-acoba-advice/advice-letter-sue-gray-chief-of-staff-leader-of-hm-official-opposition

Because that was an investigation requested by Sue Gray herself (standard practice) as to whether it was appropriate for her to take on the role with Labour and if so what restrictions should apply.

It was not an investigation into whether Sue Gray broke the rules by her actions in speaking to Keir Starmer.

As the report itself states "Any breach of the Civil Service Code (rules) would be a matter for the government" i.e. not a matter for that specific report.

Here is the Cabinet Office investigation report into whether she broke the rules https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2023-07-03/hcws900

Have you read it? If you have, regardless of who wrote it, it spells out quite clearly that she did break the rules and why.

Here are the salient points: -

"The political impartiality section (of the Civil Service Code) states, ‘you must… act in a way which deserves and retains the confidence of ministers’."

"Ms Gray first spoke to the Leader of the Opposition in late October. This was approximately four months before she resigned from the Civil Service. The letter from ACoBA also states that “...she had subsequent brief informal conversations … where she was updated on their developing plans…”. She did not inform ministers or the Civil Service of these interactions at any point prior to her resignation."

Therefore: -

"This process, led by the Civil Service, found that the Civil Service Code was prima facie broken as a result of the undeclared contact between Ms Gray and the Leader of the Opposition."

i.e. By holding informal discussions with Labour on taking a senior role with them and not reporting this to ministers or the Civil Service Sue Gray was clearly not acting in a way that deserves the confidence of ministers.