This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Anyone doing this sort of thing deserves to lose. We clearly need a change in law to pick up such ads (on all sides). You would think the predicted dead cert winners were starting to panic....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/conservatives-facebook-dar...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/conservatives-facebook-dar...
9
9
In reply to Offwidth:
Seems from the article that all sides are using Facebook etc, and in addition Facebook itself tends to channel the content you see a fair bit.
I wonder if the social media genie, which seems so corrosive to national discourse, can be put back in its bottle?
Seems from the article that all sides are using Facebook etc, and in addition Facebook itself tends to channel the content you see a fair bit.
I wonder if the social media genie, which seems so corrosive to national discourse, can be put back in its bottle?
2
In reply to Offwidth:
They can't all lose.
I assume all the parties using Facebook for direct marketing are declaring the funds.
They can't all lose.
I assume all the parties using Facebook for direct marketing are declaring the funds.
1
1
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Ads will be centrally funded but targeted at particular constituencies. This is how they evade the spending caps and how they managed to win so many key marginals at the last election. Illegal but not worth prosecuting, according to the electoral commission.
Ads will be centrally funded but targeted at particular constituencies. This is how they evade the spending caps and how they managed to win so many key marginals at the last election. Illegal but not worth prosecuting, according to the electoral commission.
2
In reply to Chris the Tall:
If there is evidence the other parties are doing this type of illegal targetting they deserve condemnation as well, as yet I've seen no such evidence. If labour are guilty it will be rank hypocrisy (but its hard to see how):
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/kinnock-calls-investigatio...
If there is evidence the other parties are doing this type of illegal targetting they deserve condemnation as well, as yet I've seen no such evidence. If labour are guilty it will be rank hypocrisy (but its hard to see how):
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/kinnock-calls-investigatio...
3
In reply to Offwidth:
The first thing everyone should do when they see a Tory advert on the web is click it, if it comes back then click it again. Every time someone that hates the Tories clicks their advert they have wasted a couple of quid.
The first thing everyone should do when they see a Tory advert on the web is click it, if it comes back then click it again. Every time someone that hates the Tories clicks their advert they have wasted a couple of quid.
14
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
......... as well as the dirty tricks they can always rely on their old friends the press barons:
https://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-article-pulled-telegraph-press...
......... as well as the dirty tricks they can always rely on their old friends the press barons:
https://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-article-pulled-telegraph-press...
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Hang on a minute.
Labour pay for adverts directly aimed at young people to increase their share of the vote. And that's ok?
The Tories launch a counter campaign aimed at young people, but wisely, only target marginal seats, thus making more funds available and the campaign more effective. And that's not ok?
What did I miss here?
Hang on a minute.
Labour pay for adverts directly aimed at young people to increase their share of the vote. And that's ok?
The Tories launch a counter campaign aimed at young people, but wisely, only target marginal seats, thus making more funds available and the campaign more effective. And that's not ok?
What did I miss here?
15
8
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The law? Have you already forgotten the illegal conservative electoral funding that was part of the cause of this snap election.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commissi...
The law? Have you already forgotten the illegal conservative electoral funding that was part of the cause of this snap election.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commissi...
9
5
11
19
In reply to Offwidth:
They probably aren't because if Corbyn wins it's a trip back in time, you'll be swapping your smart phone for a zx81.
> . If labour are guilty it will be rank hypocrisy
They probably aren't because if Corbyn wins it's a trip back in time, you'll be swapping your smart phone for a zx81.
4
15
In reply to Postmanpat:
The law applies to everyone. Show me any evidence of centrally funded constituency targetted negative campaigning adverts from Labour (or similar from any other party). It's sad your normally sensible standards on things like legal issues are clearly starting to slip.
Do you seriously think encouraging young people to vote potentially constitutes a legal breach? The low proportion of young people voting is a really worrying sign for the future of UK politics and sensible voices in all the main parties say this needs action.
The law applies to everyone. Show me any evidence of centrally funded constituency targetted negative campaigning adverts from Labour (or similar from any other party). It's sad your normally sensible standards on things like legal issues are clearly starting to slip.
Do you seriously think encouraging young people to vote potentially constitutes a legal breach? The low proportion of young people voting is a really worrying sign for the future of UK politics and sensible voices in all the main parties say this needs action.
Post edited at 15:00
8
1
In reply to summo:
A Labour wit might say its better than an 1870s May abacus. I'm not a member of any party.
A Labour wit might say its better than an 1870s May abacus. I'm not a member of any party.
3
In reply to Offwidth:
What age would that make May? Even Diane abbot could work out that May wasn't alive then.
Ps. Not a party member either.
> A Labour wit might say its better than an 1870s May abacus.
What age would that make May? Even Diane abbot could work out that May wasn't alive then.
Ps. Not a party member either.
2
In reply to Offwidth:
https://www.ft.com/content/c78c3bd0-36f8-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3
I've mostly seen pretty negative Facebook stuff about the Tories, very little about Labour. Given its Facebook, I've no idea where a lot of it starts off.
https://www.ft.com/content/c78c3bd0-36f8-11e7-99bd-13beb0903fa3
I've mostly seen pretty negative Facebook stuff about the Tories, very little about Labour. Given its Facebook, I've no idea where a lot of it starts off.
1
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Facebook is full of nasty shit. Political party funded ads are the issue here.
Facebook is full of nasty shit. Political party funded ads are the issue here.
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
No need to be sarcastic.
Simply point out that the Labour adverts are centrally funded but aimed at all the constituencies and the conservative ones are centrally funded but seem to be aimed at specific constituencies. And you feel that may be illegal.
No need to be sarcastic.
Simply point out that the Labour adverts are centrally funded but aimed at all the constituencies and the conservative ones are centrally funded but seem to be aimed at specific constituencies. And you feel that may be illegal.
2
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I think the article says that the orginal adverts were done by someone from a charity and aimed at getting young people to vote... rather than a political advert (i.e.. not a Labour party funded campaign). They hoped enough would want to vote Labour. The conservative adverts were just that - party adverts attacking Corbyn.
I think thats the gist of it.
I think the article says that the orginal adverts were done by someone from a charity and aimed at getting young people to vote... rather than a political advert (i.e.. not a Labour party funded campaign). They hoped enough would want to vote Labour. The conservative adverts were just that - party adverts attacking Corbyn.
I think thats the gist of it.
Post edited at 17:01
4
In reply to Bellie:
The article says they were activists and had raised £13k and were targeting key marginal seats in order to gain votes for Labour.
It says one of them works for a charity.
Call me cynical but that still looks like it wouldn't be declared by the Labour Party in any capacity, local or national.
The article says they were activists and had raised £13k and were targeting key marginal seats in order to gain votes for Labour.
It says one of them works for a charity.
Call me cynical but that still looks like it wouldn't be declared by the Labour Party in any capacity, local or national.
4
3
In reply to Bellie:
It's a bit vague, Charlotte Gerada, who was quoted in the article, 'works for a charity'. But her charity work doesn't have anything to do with Labour specifically so how did she raise 13k over a few of days with the intention of boosting the Labour vote in marginal constituencies? Looking at her Twitter feed, she's a Labour supporter, and describes herself as an activist and campaigner. So this looks like a way of spending thousands on key constituencies without declaring the spending to the Electoral Commission. Looks like she's only complaining because the Tory 'charity workers' managed to raise more than her.
It's a bit vague, Charlotte Gerada, who was quoted in the article, 'works for a charity'. But her charity work doesn't have anything to do with Labour specifically so how did she raise 13k over a few of days with the intention of boosting the Labour vote in marginal constituencies? Looking at her Twitter feed, she's a Labour supporter, and describes herself as an activist and campaigner. So this looks like a way of spending thousands on key constituencies without declaring the spending to the Electoral Commission. Looks like she's only complaining because the Tory 'charity workers' managed to raise more than her.
5
2
1
In reply to Bellie:
Curious, how do differentiate spending on advertising by say Momentum from the Labour party itself?
Curious, how do differentiate spending on advertising by say Momentum from the Labour party itself?
1
1
In reply to Offwidth:
There should definitely be a law that if a political party runs an ad on the web they need to upload a copy to a public website run by the electoral commission which would show everyone *all* the advertising run by the party so that if they try and say different and contradictory things to different people it will be immediately obvious.
> Anyone doing this sort of thing deserves to lose. We clearly need a change in law to pick up such ads (on all sides). You would think the predicted dead cert winners were starting to panic....https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/conservatives-facebook-dar...
There should definitely be a law that if a political party runs an ad on the web they need to upload a copy to a public website run by the electoral commission which would show everyone *all* the advertising run by the party so that if they try and say different and contradictory things to different people it will be immediately obvious.
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I think you're going to run out of politicians very rapidly if being "two-faced" is banned!!
> There should definitely be a law that if a political party runs an ad on the web they need to upload a copy to a public website run by the electoral commission which would show everyone *all* the advertising run by the party so that if they try and say different and contradictory things to different people it will be immediately obvious.
I think you're going to run out of politicians very rapidly if being "two-faced" is banned!!
1
1
In reply to Offwidth:
What law have they broken? If the ads are generic mational ads, but specifically targetted, there is no offence. Labour has about 1200 facebook ads out there.
If they don't target them effectively they'd better try harder.
> The law applies to everyone. Show me any evidence of centrally funded constituency targetted negative campaigning adverts from Labour (or similar from any other party). It's sad your normally sensible standards on things like legal issues are clearly starting to slip.Do you seriously think encouraging young people to vote potentially constitutes a legal breach? The low proportion of young people voting is a really worrying sign for the future of UK politics and sensible voices in all the main parties say this needs action.
>What law have they broken? If the ads are generic mational ads, but specifically targetted, there is no offence. Labour has about 1200 facebook ads out there.
If they don't target them effectively they'd better try harder.
1
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
My apologies, I forgot you have a bad habit of not being able to look at detail sometimes. The specifics are raised in the articles and the details are on the electoral commision website and in data protection legislation (use of data in political campaigns, that S. Kinnock is chasing). The Conservatives were found to have illegally broken different rules in the last general election and were fined as a result and considered for prosecution (the crime clearly took place but the CPS did not pursue as the guilty parties were hard to prosecute)
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/05/10/myth-busting-the-tory-election-fr...
A quote from that article: "8. But the Prime Minister said earlier: “The CPS has decided – they are an independent body – they have decided that no charges will be brought against any candidate in relation to this matter. Candidates did nothing wrong. It’s very important and I repeat that – I have said it many times – candidates did nothing wrong.” and "[The CPS] confirmed what we believed all along” – that “local spending was properly reported”. Is she lying? Yes. Brazenly. The CPS in fact said the opposite, concluding, as we’ve seen, that there was evidence to support a prosecution of failing to submit true expenditure reports, but declined to prosecute as an act of clemency on public interest grounds."
Other parties have broken other rules in the past (eg past EC fines and some past Labour candidates engaged in postal vote fraud). To me such behavior is disgusting and more important than any party politics and the law needs reviewing to ensure fairer punishments for those who attempt to subvert rules that protect our democracy.
My apologies, I forgot you have a bad habit of not being able to look at detail sometimes. The specifics are raised in the articles and the details are on the electoral commision website and in data protection legislation (use of data in political campaigns, that S. Kinnock is chasing). The Conservatives were found to have illegally broken different rules in the last general election and were fined as a result and considered for prosecution (the crime clearly took place but the CPS did not pursue as the guilty parties were hard to prosecute)
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/05/10/myth-busting-the-tory-election-fr...
A quote from that article: "8. But the Prime Minister said earlier: “The CPS has decided – they are an independent body – they have decided that no charges will be brought against any candidate in relation to this matter. Candidates did nothing wrong. It’s very important and I repeat that – I have said it many times – candidates did nothing wrong.” and "[The CPS] confirmed what we believed all along” – that “local spending was properly reported”. Is she lying? Yes. Brazenly. The CPS in fact said the opposite, concluding, as we’ve seen, that there was evidence to support a prosecution of failing to submit true expenditure reports, but declined to prosecute as an act of clemency on public interest grounds."
Other parties have broken other rules in the past (eg past EC fines and some past Labour candidates engaged in postal vote fraud). To me such behavior is disgusting and more important than any party politics and the law needs reviewing to ensure fairer punishments for those who attempt to subvert rules that protect our democracy.
Post edited at 11:20
9
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Campaigning to suppress the youth vote is hardly good for democracy for starters. Refusing to make public the ads being served for scrutiny smells pretty bad and that's before we accept we basically just have to take it on trust the funding structure isn't breaking electoral law in an election triggered in large part by Tory campaign funding scandal. Nah, nothing to see here.
Jk
> Hang on a minute. Labour pay for adverts directly aimed at young people to increase their share of the vote. And that's ok?The Tories launch a counter campaign aimed at young people, but wisely, only target marginal seats, thus making more funds available and the campaign more effective. And that's not ok?What did I miss here?
Campaigning to suppress the youth vote is hardly good for democracy for starters. Refusing to make public the ads being served for scrutiny smells pretty bad and that's before we accept we basically just have to take it on trust the funding structure isn't breaking electoral law in an election triggered in large part by Tory campaign funding scandal. Nah, nothing to see here.
Jk
4
2
In reply to jkarran:
Did they campaign to suppress the youth vote, or against Corbyn ( which might lead to a decreased youth vote). Pretty big difference.
Did they campaign to suppress the youth vote, or against Corbyn ( which might lead to a decreased youth vote). Pretty big difference.
1
In reply to jkarran:
Did the evil Tories really send out adverts telling young people not to vote?!?!? Oh my!!!
> Campaigning to suppress the youth vote is hardly good for democracy for starters.
Did the evil Tories really send out adverts telling young people not to vote?!?!? Oh my!!!
1
In reply to Offwidth:
And you have a bad habit of confusing different things and demanding people do research to support your case. I was asking about the facebook postings in your OP.
What is the answer ?
And you have a bad habit of confusing different things and demanding people do research to support your case. I was asking about the facebook postings in your OP.
What is the answer ?
Post edited at 14:12
2
2
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I think that's very likely a coincidence in this particular case ie. almost certainly anti-Corbyn ads tragetted at a marginal (and not attempting to block the reported ads specificly designed to encourage the youth vote). Use of such adverts always had the effects of suppressing voting intensions of those regarded as unenthusiastic Labour supporters as well as encouraging those likely to vote against JC.
We have so much evidence now of dirty internet campaigning tricks across the world (yet with mainly opaque sources of funding and methodology and links to political partys), something clearly needs to be done.
I think that's very likely a coincidence in this particular case ie. almost certainly anti-Corbyn ads tragetted at a marginal (and not attempting to block the reported ads specificly designed to encourage the youth vote). Use of such adverts always had the effects of suppressing voting intensions of those regarded as unenthusiastic Labour supporters as well as encouraging those likely to vote against JC.
We have so much evidence now of dirty internet campaigning tricks across the world (yet with mainly opaque sources of funding and methodology and links to political partys), something clearly needs to be done.
Post edited at 14:54
1
1
In reply to Offwidth:
If you are in any doubt about the influence Facebook (and Twitter etc) has on out politics you should watch this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08qgbc3/panorama-what-facebook-knows-...
Just one in a long list of reasons I deleted my Facebook account. I hope people wake up someday soon.
If you are in any doubt about the influence Facebook (and Twitter etc) has on out politics you should watch this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08qgbc3/panorama-what-facebook-knows-...
Just one in a long list of reasons I deleted my Facebook account. I hope people wake up someday soon.
2
In reply to CragRat11:
Thanks. I've just watched it.
Certainly needs regulating to the same level that political adverts are elsewhere.
People need to be educated that everything they see is pretty much opinion and fake and to approach everything with a huge amount of skepticism.
I didn't see anything on the program that frightened me or would make me delete my account though.
Thanks. I've just watched it.
Certainly needs regulating to the same level that political adverts are elsewhere.
People need to be educated that everything they see is pretty much opinion and fake and to approach everything with a huge amount of skepticism.
I didn't see anything on the program that frightened me or would make me delete my account though.
1
1
In reply to Offwidth:
For the third time, what is the problem here, legally (as far as I can see it doesn't relate to earlier funding rule breaches at all)? Obviously some gaming going in by drowning out others but more than that?
For the third time, what is the problem here, legally (as far as I can see it doesn't relate to earlier funding rule breaches at all)? Obviously some gaming going in by drowning out others but more than that?
1
3
In reply to MG:
It's the Tories, innit?
> For the third time, what is the problem here, legally (as far as I can see it doesn't relate to earlier funding rule breaches at all)? Obviously some gaming going in by drowning out others but more than that?
It's the Tories, innit?
2
1
In reply to BnB:
It's just not fair.
But
If Labour can just get a few impressionable young people everything will be ok.
How about people address why young people aren't voting for a bunch of old fogies who they have nothing on common with?
.
> It's the Tories, innit?
It's just not fair.
But
If Labour can just get a few impressionable young people everything will be ok.
How about people address why young people aren't voting for a bunch of old fogies who they have nothing on common with?
.
Post edited at 19:45
1
In reply to MG:
And I've asked twice. Answer there is none.......
> For the third time, what is the problem here, legally (as far as I can see it doesn't relate to earlier funding rule breaches at all)? Obviously some gaming going in by drowning out others but more than that?
And I've asked twice. Answer there is none.......
3
2
In reply to CragRat11:
What facebook knows about you of value to advertisers and political campaigns does really depend on how you use your account. There's a freely available tool on one of the Cambridge uni web pages you can run over your account to extract a profile of yourself based on your activity, basically the forefather of what we're all discussing now. I ran it on mine and it came back with complete rubbish, the only detail it got close to right was my age which may help explain why very little of the sponsored content and advertising I get served is of any interest at all. I don't suppose my facebook use is atypical so perhaps the value in profiling and targeting people like this is being slightly oversold at the moment. Perhaps not.
jk
> Just one in a long list of reasons I deleted my Facebook account. I hope people wake up someday soon.
What facebook knows about you of value to advertisers and political campaigns does really depend on how you use your account. There's a freely available tool on one of the Cambridge uni web pages you can run over your account to extract a profile of yourself based on your activity, basically the forefather of what we're all discussing now. I ran it on mine and it came back with complete rubbish, the only detail it got close to right was my age which may help explain why very little of the sponsored content and advertising I get served is of any interest at all. I don't suppose my facebook use is atypical so perhaps the value in profiling and targeting people like this is being slightly oversold at the moment. Perhaps not.
jk
2
1
In reply to Offwidth:
>> https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/05/10/myth-busting-the-tory-election-fr... A quote from that article: "8. But the Prime Minister said earlier: “The CPS has decided – they are an independent body – they have decided that no charges will be brought against any candidate in relation to this matter. Candidates did nothing wrong. It’s very important and I repeat that – I have said it many times – candidates did nothing wrong.” and "[The CPS] confirmed what we believed all along” – that “local spending was properly reported”. Is she lying? Yes. Brazenly.
She's actually right to say the candidates did nothing wrong, and this is why there was no prosecutions. The candidates in the targeted constituencies had very little control over the CHQ campaigns on their behalf - sounds like they were swamped with help from above. But CHQ isn't legally liable, and it is likely that a jury would feel it is unfair to punish the candidates and their agents.
There is also the difficult question of whether these additional efforts were in support of the local candidate or the national party.
Obviously the law is outdated, but then so it the voting system
>> https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/05/10/myth-busting-the-tory-election-fr... A quote from that article: "8. But the Prime Minister said earlier: “The CPS has decided – they are an independent body – they have decided that no charges will be brought against any candidate in relation to this matter. Candidates did nothing wrong. It’s very important and I repeat that – I have said it many times – candidates did nothing wrong.” and "[The CPS] confirmed what we believed all along” – that “local spending was properly reported”. Is she lying? Yes. Brazenly.
She's actually right to say the candidates did nothing wrong, and this is why there was no prosecutions. The candidates in the targeted constituencies had very little control over the CHQ campaigns on their behalf - sounds like they were swamped with help from above. But CHQ isn't legally liable, and it is likely that a jury would feel it is unfair to punish the candidates and their agents.
There is also the difficult question of whether these additional efforts were in support of the local candidate or the national party.
Obviously the law is outdated, but then so it the voting system
1
1
In reply to MG:
The fact that the campaign exists isn't the issue for me. I'm not sure anyone says it was illegal but there is an ethical argument here. It's the way it is designed, constructed and targeted at certain people.
The colour scheme, the rhetoric and the accusatory tone. It's dirty tricks, misinformation and praying on those who aren't educated or savvy enough to see it for what it is.......propaganda!
Pretty standard tory politics though I guess, perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised.
> For the third time, what is the problem here, legally (as far as I can see it doesn't relate to earlier funding rule breaches at all)? Obviously some gaming going in by drowning out others but more than that?
The fact that the campaign exists isn't the issue for me. I'm not sure anyone says it was illegal but there is an ethical argument here. It's the way it is designed, constructed and targeted at certain people.
The colour scheme, the rhetoric and the accusatory tone. It's dirty tricks, misinformation and praying on those who aren't educated or savvy enough to see it for what it is.......propaganda!
Pretty standard tory politics though I guess, perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised.
1
In reply to CragRat11:
Probably - but you would have to be pretty naive not to anticipate that sort of thing from parties in an election.
> The fact that the campaign exists isn't the issue for me. I'm not sure anyone says it was illegal
The OP did above.> but there is an ethical argument here. It's the way it is designed, constructed and targeted at certain people.The colour scheme, the rhetoric and the accusatory tone. It's dirty tricks, misinformation and praying on those who aren't educated or savvy enough to see it for what it is.......propaganda!
Probably - but you would have to be pretty naive not to anticipate that sort of thing from parties in an election.
2
In reply to CragRat11:
If you think that the Tory propaganda is bad you should see the absolute rubbish that anotherangyvoice dish out. I'm not sure why any propoganda is allowed on Facebook. It's time social media was regulated in the same way as TV adverts are and only official communications from the political parties are allowed.
If you think that the Tory propaganda is bad you should see the absolute rubbish that anotherangyvoice dish out. I'm not sure why any propoganda is allowed on Facebook. It's time social media was regulated in the same way as TV adverts are and only official communications from the political parties are allowed.
1
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Yeh I agree. The power Facebook has to carefully target people is unreal, and most people don't even know it's happening. It should be regulated, but that's the last thing Facebook want to happen of course.
Unfortunately almost everyone has bought in to it so FB gets exactly what it wants.
It's harder nowadays to opt out than it is to opt in so almost everyone is part of the system. Collective control.
Yeh I agree. The power Facebook has to carefully target people is unreal, and most people don't even know it's happening. It should be regulated, but that's the last thing Facebook want to happen of course.
Unfortunately almost everyone has bought in to it so FB gets exactly what it wants.
It's harder nowadays to opt out than it is to opt in so almost everyone is part of the system. Collective control.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Facebook is no place for politics. I'm happily hiding anyone who keeps posting their political views when they don't agree with mine. Facebook is for cats and photos of yer dinner.
Facebook is no place for politics. I'm happily hiding anyone who keeps posting their political views when they don't agree with mine. Facebook is for cats and photos of yer dinner.
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Sorry Chris but I'm sticking with the legal view of the secret barrister over your opinion. You seem to be locked in the same situation as PMP and MG. What you are missing is legal breaches around election law are much wider in remit than prosecutions in criminal law... eg if the EC fines a political party they have been found to have breached the election law within their remit. The helpful EC website also provides guidance to legal concerns outside their remit (the limits on funding and especially watching for breaches of rule where central funds are being used in constituencies) but there is also OFCOM responsibilities for some content, much is devolved to the CPS (where law breaches may be identified that they feel they cannot prosecute... as per these conservative constituency issues) and in extreme cases, advertising standards may be involved (political ads do get much more leeway than standard ads but there are limits).
Anyway on the doing 'something about this' front, 38 degrees have just posted a useful link:
https://whotargets.me/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=bla...
Sorry Chris but I'm sticking with the legal view of the secret barrister over your opinion. You seem to be locked in the same situation as PMP and MG. What you are missing is legal breaches around election law are much wider in remit than prosecutions in criminal law... eg if the EC fines a political party they have been found to have breached the election law within their remit. The helpful EC website also provides guidance to legal concerns outside their remit (the limits on funding and especially watching for breaches of rule where central funds are being used in constituencies) but there is also OFCOM responsibilities for some content, much is devolved to the CPS (where law breaches may be identified that they feel they cannot prosecute... as per these conservative constituency issues) and in extreme cases, advertising standards may be involved (political ads do get much more leeway than standard ads but there are limits).
Anyway on the doing 'something about this' front, 38 degrees have just posted a useful link:
https://whotargets.me/?utm_source&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=bla...
In reply to Offwidth:
But my opinion is much the same as the secret barrister !!!
"It was always likely to be tricky to prove that local candidates completing their expense returns in reliance on the advice of party HQ were individually dishonest, as opposed to careless."
OK I wouldn't use the word careless, merely that they lobby fodder obeying orders.
> Sorry Chris but I'm sticking with the legal view of the secret barrister over your opinion.
But my opinion is much the same as the secret barrister !!!
"It was always likely to be tricky to prove that local candidates completing their expense returns in reliance on the advice of party HQ were individually dishonest, as opposed to careless."
OK I wouldn't use the word careless, merely that they lobby fodder obeying orders.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I always though his blog posts were pretty reasonable. Not seen his Facebook stuff though.
I always though his blog posts were pretty reasonable. Not seen his Facebook stuff though.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
A repeat of that quote above on point 8 : "Is she lying? Yes. Brazenly." there seems some mutual incompatibility somewhere.
A repeat of that quote above on point 8 : "Is she lying? Yes. Brazenly." there seems some mutual incompatibility somewhere.
In reply to Offwidth:
Go back to my original point
"She's actually right to say the candidates did nothing wrong"
I stand by that comment.
As to this comment by May
“[The CPS] confirmed what we believed all along” – that “local spending was properly reported”.
I didn't give my opinion on this, but yes I agree with the secret barrister that it's a brazen lie.
Do you believe that it would be fair to prosecute the candidates for the actions of CPHQ ? Do you think such prosecutions would be successful ?
I think the answer to both questions is No, so I take it you'll disagree with me
Go back to my original point
"She's actually right to say the candidates did nothing wrong"
I stand by that comment.
As to this comment by May
“[The CPS] confirmed what we believed all along” – that “local spending was properly reported”.
I didn't give my opinion on this, but yes I agree with the secret barrister that it's a brazen lie.
Do you believe that it would be fair to prosecute the candidates for the actions of CPHQ ? Do you think such prosecutions would be successful ?
I think the answer to both questions is No, so I take it you'll disagree with me
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I agree entirely with TSB (who still has a different view on your first point). In an idealistic sense I think it might have been fair in the worst cases but pragmatically I think the CPS made the correct decision in not wasting public money given the chances of success. I'd rather see a tightening of the law first... it's too late for this election though... more legal breaches are certain to go unpunished.
I agree entirely with TSB (who still has a different view on your first point). In an idealistic sense I think it might have been fair in the worst cases but pragmatically I think the CPS made the correct decision in not wasting public money given the chances of success. I'd rather see a tightening of the law first... it's too late for this election though... more legal breaches are certain to go unpunished.
In reply to Offwidth:
It's out there and there is plenty of it.
Where do you think the fundimg for the more left wing version of this tactic originates from?
> If there is evidence the other parties are doing this type of illegal targetting they deserve condemnation as well, as yet I've seen no such evidence. If labour are guilty it will be rank hypocrisy (but its hard to see how):https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/27/kinnock-calls-investigatio...
It's out there and there is plenty of it.
Where do you think the fundimg for the more left wing version of this tactic originates from?
In reply to timjones:
I've seen Facebook misuse from affiliated groups but not the Labour party as yet (the right wing press would hardly hide similar dark tactics) Labour have also been fined by the EC so have been guilty of legal breaches of central fund use but at a tiny extent compared to the conservative abuses and with no referral to the CPS.
I've seen Facebook misuse from affiliated groups but not the Labour party as yet (the right wing press would hardly hide similar dark tactics) Labour have also been fined by the EC so have been guilty of legal breaches of central fund use but at a tiny extent compared to the conservative abuses and with no referral to the CPS.
In reply to Offwidth:
So it is OK if Momentum adopts the tactic in your eyes?
> I've seen Facebook misuse from affiliated groups but not the Labour party as yet (the right wing press would hardly hide similar dark tactics) Labour have also been fined by the EC so have been guilty of legal breaches of central fund use but at a tiny extent compared to the conservative abuses and with no referral to the CPS.
So it is OK if Momentum adopts the tactic in your eyes?
In reply to timjones:
No it's not OK if you have evidence they have done similar. Although there are strict rules on any potentially political group and their pre-election campaign spending (hitting quite a few charities) abuses do seem to becoming more common... hence the non party political 38 degrees efforts to track such abuses. Momentum sadly has been fully infiltrated by trots and other revolutionary extreme left groups (including quite a few I know well as I campaigned against them for decades as a moderate in my lecturer's union) so I see no good coming out of it unless they clear them out. It seems completely incompatible to me to be a Labour affilate and a revolutionary
No it's not OK if you have evidence they have done similar. Although there are strict rules on any potentially political group and their pre-election campaign spending (hitting quite a few charities) abuses do seem to becoming more common... hence the non party political 38 degrees efforts to track such abuses. Momentum sadly has been fully infiltrated by trots and other revolutionary extreme left groups (including quite a few I know well as I campaigned against them for decades as a moderate in my lecturer's union) so I see no good coming out of it unless they clear them out. It seems completely incompatible to me to be a Labour affilate and a revolutionary
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Sadly I somehow seem to have been targetted for Facebook advertising from Momentum that is blatantly setting out the "smear" their opponents. I'm aware that all parties are doing the same thing because friends have shared adverts from other groups that they have seen, but rather bizarrely I have only been targetted by Momentum.
I'm not sure how the the paid advert "machinery" reached the conclusion that this was a smart move because my only response to the tactic is to a huge black mark against any party that indulges in the practice. Whilst I don't keep an exact count my impression is that at present the "black mark league table" is an unsavoury "score draw"
> No it's not OK if you have evidence they have done similar. Although there are strict rules on any potentially political group and their pre-election campaign spending (hitting quite a few charities) abuses do seem to becoming more common... hence the non party political 38 degrees efforts to track such abuses. Momentum sadly has been fully infiltrated by trots and other revolutionary extreme left groups (including quite a few I know well as I campaigned against them for decades as a moderate in my lecturer's union) so I see no good coming out of it unless they clear them out. It seems completely incompatible to me to be a Labour affilate and a revolutionary
Sadly I somehow seem to have been targetted for Facebook advertising from Momentum that is blatantly setting out the "smear" their opponents. I'm aware that all parties are doing the same thing because friends have shared adverts from other groups that they have seen, but rather bizarrely I have only been targetted by Momentum.
I'm not sure how the the paid advert "machinery" reached the conclusion that this was a smart move because my only response to the tactic is to a huge black mark against any party that indulges in the practice. Whilst I don't keep an exact count my impression is that at present the "black mark league table" is an unsavoury "score draw"
In reply to Offwidth:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-40129826
So it seems the CPS has done a u-turn - will be interesting to see the outcome.
The irony being that this was the one seat that most of us wanted the Tories to win !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-40129826
So it seems the CPS has done a u-turn - will be interesting to see the outcome.
The irony being that this was the one seat that most of us wanted the Tories to win !
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I read to the bottom of the article and it doesn't say anywhere that he is being charged over the battlebus. Just in connection with enquiries made during the battlebus enquiry.
Not really a u-turn.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-40129826 So it seems the CPS has done a u-turn - will be interesting to see the outcome.The irony being that this was the one seat that most of us wanted the Tories to win !
I read to the bottom of the article and it doesn't say anywhere that he is being charged over the battlebus. Just in connection with enquiries made during the battlebus enquiry.
Not really a u-turn.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The article was updated after I posted the link
> I read to the bottom of the article and it doesn't say anywhere that he is being charged over the battlebus. Just in connection with enquiries made during the battlebus enquiry. Not really a u-turn.
The article was updated after I posted the link
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...