[mrjonathanr]

Fact-checking website on Johnson’s, and other politicians’, lies and distortions. Interesting, if dispiriting, reading.

https://boris-johnson-lies.com/

No wonder the rabbit hole of conspiracy is so attractive when integrity and reliability are in short supply.

Taster- regarding Johnson’s claim to have descended 33m on his first ever dive:

Verdict
Anything that Boris Johnson says on any subject must be assumed to be false unless independently corroborated.

We sent a letter to Johnson’s personal and office address offering him the chance to respond. The letter was received (and signed for) by both, but no reply.

[Ged]

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the sigtt or sound of the man. But why on earth would he take the time to respond to a request for confirmation on how far he dived, from a person he's probably never heard of?

[chriss]

Boris's wouldn't respond to his mother's dying cries unless it made him a few quid.

[mrjonathanr]

I think he’ll have heard of -and from- Peter Oborne, to be fair. Many times. The point is given the opportunity to correct the record, it wasn’t taken. Possibly not for the first time….

The lie itself is pathetic, but the warning about assuming falsehood unless proven otherwise amused me.

[jwi]

It is all a bit querulous, no?

If a prime minister tells a tall tale about how deep they dived, what a big fish they caught on a thin line, what a hard boulderproblem they flashed, or other inconsequential thing people lie about, it's no skin of my nose, no?

[remus]

It is all a bit querulous, no?

If a prime minister tells a tall tale about how deep they dived, what a big fish they caught on a thin line, what a hard boulderproblem they flashed, or other inconsequential thing people lie about, it's no skin of my nose, no?

Perhaps, but it is also easy not to lie about these things. Maybe it is naively optimistic, but I would quite like politicians who don't lie regardless of subject.

[mrjonathanr]

Seems lyou haven’t understood what’s in that website jwi? It’s a fact checker, covering all public utterances by MPs, although obviously, given his character, Johnson has a starring role.

I think politicians telling lies about policy and its impact matters very much. The effects on public trust and so democracy are corrosive.

Here’s another:
https://boris-johnson-lies.com/i-dont-believe-brexit-is-a-drag-on-the-economy-the-figures-dont-show-that


and another
https://boris-johnson-lies.com/we-got-brexit-done-when-keir-starmer-voted-48-times-48-times-to-undo-the

I could go on…

https://boris-johnson-lies.com/sir-keir-starmer-spent-most-of-his-time-as-dpp-prosecuting-journalists-and

[petejh]

Bojo was one in a long line of bullshitters, in an environment that strongly incentivises bullshit.

There are many types of bullshitter and his was cartoon-figure bullshit in plain sight - easy to see and to choose to ignore or believe.

My pet dislike are bullshitter politicians who’ve polished (or who sincerely believe) themselves to a higher gloss of righteousness. Tony Blair and his advisors for example. Opposite In schtick to Boris, but similarly deceptive and imo a more manipulative individual. You could say his lies have had just as disastrous long-lasting outcomes in loss of trust in government and government communication.

[SA Chris]

It started with his perpetuation of Brexit lies, and just carried on. Because people wanted to believe them.

[mrjonathanr]

Pete, I think you underestimate the harm caused by the accumulation of lies from Johnson et al. Promising prosperity from Brexit to disadvantaged communities while delivering its opposite is serious.

If we are talking about one very specific lie from Blair, I’d agree it’s caused far more damage than any other.

[Dingdong]

Bojo was one in a long line of bullshitters, in an environment that strongly incentivises bullshit.

There are many types of bullshitter and his was cartoon-figure bullshit in plain sight - easy to see and to choose to ignore or believe.

My pet dislike are bullshitter politicians who’ve polished (or who sincerely believe) themselves to a higher gloss of righteousness. Tony Blair and his advisors for example. Opposite In schtick to Boris, but similarly deceptive and imo a more manipulative individual. You could say his lies have had just as disastrous long-lasting outcomes in loss of trust in government and government communication.

Tories absolutely fucked the country in the arse the last 14 years and Pete still banging on about Blair 

[SA Chris]

Indeed. Just as disastrous - they don't even come close. Diversion tactics as good as any politician.

[ali k]

Tony Blair and his advisors…You could say his lies have had just as disastrous long-lasting outcomes in loss of trust in government and government communication.

What specific lies do you have in mind? I’m talking ones that are provably false in the same way as Johnson’s.

[slab_happy]

Tony Blair and his advisors…You could say his lies have had just as disastrous long-lasting outcomes in loss of trust in government and government communication.

What specific lies do you have in mind? I’m talking ones that are provably false in the same way as Johnson’s.

Dodgy dossier and all that:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/03/iraq.usa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier

Blair secretly agreed with Bush to invade Iraq regardless of whether WMD were found, then bullshitted both Parliament and the public about the facts and the justification for war.

I speak as a leftie here, and I feel like it's a diversion to go "BUT BLAIR" as a response to criticisms of Johnson's lifelong shameless mendacity on a vast range of issues (and the way the Tory party as a whole seems to have embraced that level of dishonesty).

However, Blair's lying on this specific issue was undeniably huge, egregious, and resulted in vast numbers of deaths and leaving Iraq catastrophically fucked up in ways which led to the rise of ISIS.

[ali k]

I assumed it was this that Pete was referring to, but wondered if there were other provable specific ‘lies’ he thought Blair was guilty of.

On Iraq, I’m aware of all that and am not defending Blair’s decision and the aftermath, but the Chilcot Inquiry put the blame for the ‘dodgy dossier’ on the intelligence services. And Iain Duncan Smith was getting the same intelligence information as Blair and was even keener to go in. We can disagree on Blair’s judgement call, but I don’t think it’s as simple as saying he outright ‘lied’.

Anyway, enough diversion…

[seankenny]

However, Blair's lying on this specific issue was undeniably huge, egregious, and resulted in vast numbers of deaths and leaving Iraq catastrophically fucked up in ways which led to the rise of ISIS.

It only “resulted” in the deaths if no British involvement would have meant no Iraq War. To me it’s clear that the war was going to happen regardless, so this is just the left wing version of unwarranted British exceptionalism.

If you want a sort of counterfactual, ie an Arab country with a Ba’ath Party dictatorship that wasn’t invaded by the US, then we handily have one: Syria. Which is where ISIS actually arose and whose response to the Arab Spring was disastrous. Sure, we don’t know how an un-invaded Iraq would have fared after 2003, but I don’t think it would have been pretty.

I still think it was the wrong decision, but the effects on the U.K. were smaller than commonly thought. The two main arguments for the negative effects of Iraq were increased domestic terrorism and lower trust in politicians. France has had more Islamist terrorism and there is even less trust in politicians, and they famously gave the Iraq War a pass. So I suspect other things are just as important or more so.

[TobyD]

However, Blair's lying on this specific issue was undeniably huge, egregious, and resulted in vast numbers of deaths and leaving Iraq catastrophically fucked up in ways which led to the rise of ISIS.

It only “resulted” in the deaths if no British involvement would have meant no Iraq War. To me it’s clear that the war was going to happen regardless, so this is just the left wing version of unwarranted British exceptionalism.

If you want a sort of counterfactual, ie an Arab country with a Ba’ath Party dictatorship that wasn’t invaded by the US, then we handily have one: Syria. Which is where ISIS actually arose and whose response to the Arab Spring was disastrous. Sure, we don’t know how an un-invaded Iraq would have fared after 2003, but I don’t think it would have been pretty.

I still think it was the wrong decision, but the effects on the U.K. were smaller than commonly thought. The two main arguments for the negative effects of Iraq were increased domestic terrorism and lower trust in politicians. France has had more Islamist terrorism and there is even less trust in politicians, and they famously gave the Iraq War a pass. So I suspect other things are just as important or more so.

I think I largely agree with that. There isn't a clear simple answer to intervention or not.
On some things, Blair was undoubtedly a bullshitter and/ or misguided, how many and much probably depends on your opinion of him; but he wasn't a pathological liar in the same way as Johnson. Johnson is only interested in himself and his image, he's a serial adulterer, was prepared to lie to get articles done as a journalist, lied to his party leader (Howard), to assist the Brexit campaign, to prorogue parliament, and finally to try to get his mates off penalties when they've misbehaved.

[stone]

I know that they were only addressed to Labour Party members rather than to the public at large, but don't Keir Starmer's ten pledges mark him out as being a truely flamboyant liar?

https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-labour-leadership-pledges-2666421303

[Ged]

However, Blair's lying on this specific issue was undeniably huge, egregious, and resulted in vast numbers of deaths and leaving Iraq catastrophically fucked up in ways which led to the rise of ISIS.

It only “resulted” in the deaths if no British involvement would have meant no Iraq War. To me it’s clear that the war was going to happen regardless, so this is just the left wing version of unwarranted British exceptionalism.

If you want a sort of counterfactual, ie an Arab country with a Ba’ath Party dictatorship that wasn’t invaded by the US, then we handily have one: Syria. Which is where ISIS actually arose and whose response to the Arab Spring was disastrous. Sure, we don’t know how an un-invaded Iraq would have fared after 2003, but I don’t think it would have been pretty.

I still think it was the wrong decision, but the effects on the U.K. were smaller than commonly thought. The two main arguments for the negative effects of Iraq were increased domestic terrorism and lower trust in politicians. France has had more Islamist terrorism and there is even less trust in politicians, and they famously gave the Iraq War a pass. So I suspect other things are just as important or more so.

I think I largely agree with that. There isn't a clear simple answer to intervention or not.
On some things, Blair was undoubtedly a bullshitter and/ or misguided, how many and much probably depends on your opinion of him; but he wasn't a pathological liar in the same way as Johnson. Johnson is only interested in himself and his image, he's a serial adulterer, was prepared to lie to get articles done as a journalist, lied to his party leader (Howard), to assist the Brexit campaign, to prorogue parliament, and finally to try to get his mates off penalties when they've misbehaved.

I see Blair and Johnson as the difference between "being economical with the truth" (i can't remember where that phrase came from), and willfully and repeatedly telling blatant, provable lies.

[spidermonkey09]

I know that they were only addressed to Labour Party members rather than to the public at large, but don't Keir Starmer's ten pledges mark him out as being a truely flamboyant liar?

https://www.indy100.com/politics/keir-starmer-labour-leadership-pledges-2666421303

I can't be bothered to do the research but I am absolutely confident similar unfulfilled pledges have been made at party conferences of all parties since both parties and conferences were invented.

[stone]

Starmer's 10 pledges were made when he was running to be elected as Labour leader in 2020. They were what he claimed he would do/be if elected in that role.

[spidermonkey09]

Apologies, tired typo. I would stand by the thrust of my point. People saying all sorts of stuff to get elected and then not doing it once elected is hardly new.

[MarkJ]

Johnson, while at the Spectator, was also prepared to pay to have a journalism beaten up. This is on tape and he somehow wriggled out of being prosecuted for it. This goes well beyond what most politicians would contemplate.

[stone]

I suspect Johnston voters got broadly what they expected from him and how he portrays himself : a rougish optimist who is happy to throw public money around so long as it is via his business chums.

That isn't something I want but I struggle to see that he ever came across otherwise.

Meanwhile, if voters have little chance of changing anything at the next election (or subsequent elections), that will be due to a very careful campaign of deception that got Starmer as Labour leader where he then changed Party rules and installed identikit candidates in constituencies across the country.

[mrjonathanr]

Struggling to relate to reality the vision of Johnson basically delivering what he promised whilst Starmer is the true deceiver. Lying reflexively about everything, including to the HoC, the Queen, the public, is just on-brand lovable roguery whilst Starmer’s internal politicking is Machiavellian untrustworthiness? Think we’re through the rabbit hole here, Stone.