“Labour deputy says Farage is a threat to democracy and calls for misinformation clampdown”, the Guardian reports.
Reform UK is destabilising British democracy by spreading divisive material that is being amplified by bots and troll farms, Labour’s deputy leader has said.
Lucy Powell called for tighter laws on social media giants to tackle misinformation, arguing the online space was “open to wealthy individuals, and bad state actors”.
It’s open to everybody, even bad state actors like the UK.
She also highlighted the multimillion-pound donations that have bolstered Reform’s election war chest and “fund their powerful online campaigns”.
Reform UK should put that acknowledgement that they are running a powerful online campaign in their next ad.
Arguing Nigel Farage and his party posed a threat to democracy, she said the law should be strengthened to “tackle the scourge of dis- and misinformation which is ripping communities apart and undermining us all”.
She said Reform’s “exploitation of online algorithms on social media sites is well documented”, as was the way the party had benefited from “bots and troll farms to amplify support”.
A Reform spokesperson said Powell’s claims that its messages were spread by bots and troll farms was “completely untrue” and called her a “conspiracy theorist desperately trying to distract from a failing Labour government”.
“Rather than smearing voters and demanding more state censorship, Labour should be focused on fixing the messes they’ve created,” the spokesperson said.
Clamping down on misinformation? So, they’ll be shutting down The Guardian, The BBC, the Government Information Office….
Whenever you see the phrase “threat to democracy” substitute the phrase “threat to my political preferences” or in some cases “threat to my re-election” and you pretty much have the truth.
FWIW the actual biggest threat to democracy is an unelected, unaccountable, unmanageable, unfire-able civil service, though California taking three weeks to “count the ballots” must be up there with the most transparent threat to democracy where the machinery is so plainly visible.
It’s ‘democracy’ (“Hooray! Good!”) when the masses of ordinary people agree with the elites & the authorities and ‘populism’ (“Boo-hiss! Bad!”) when those ordinary masses disagree.
And of course Reform is ‘populist’ and so a ‘threat to democracy’ – not to mention being sinful and right-wing and Nazi and badwrong in so many other ways.
One might note in passing that Reform’s “Short Money” allocation for 2025/26 is £406,296.87, less than a sixth of the Lib Dems £2.5 million allocation (on substantially fewer votes.) You kinda need private donations if your opponents are getting government donations of several million quid. (For info, Reform’s BBC favorable propaganda allocation is negative, like the Tories, and unlike Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and Nats.)
If Lucy is scratching about for ideas, may I suggest Belgium as a model ? They used the neat trick of barring Vlaams Blok from public funding, as being too beastly and right wing. The even neater trick was that they had previously limited private contributions to fourpence ha’penny per person. It had the desired effect – the party folded. I love the smell of democracy in the morning.
Here’s an idea Lucy. Let everyone have their say and then discuss everyone’s ideas openly and honestly and ordinary people can decide who they think is right. The only reason that you would want other people’s opinions censored is if you know full well that your opinions wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny. Just declaring what other people say to be misinformation isn’t a valid argument.* We need a free market of ideas and information, only dishonest players would be against that.
*This was the defence used by the UK Met Office when it was shown that they had been fabricating temperature data and using mostly poorly sited weather stations.
“Disinformation”, lies, comes from the government and those allied to it – for example the on-line advertisements (funded by taxpayers) claiming that “British government policies” are helping deal with the “cost of living crises” – these adverts are blatant lies, as, in reality, it is government policies (such as increasing taxation and the insanity of “Net Zero”) that have created the cost of living crises – and this disinformation from the government (funded by taxpayers) does not appear in Labour Party election expenses – although it clearly meant to help the Labour party in by-elections and so on.
As for the Reform Party being “divisive” – sadly they have, in reality, accepted the on-going “demographic transformation” i.e. the on-going destruction of England – which will, eventually, be followed by the destruction of Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland – indeed the wider Western world in general.
It may well be that nothing can be done to prevent the destruction of Britain and so the Restore (Restore – not Reform) Party is, perhaps, guilty of holding out FALSE hope – but certainly the Reform Party is not “divisive” as the prominent position it gives to Zia Yousef and others shows. Certainly the only role the Restore Party is playing in the up-coming by-election is to help “Andy” Burnham – this is a first-past-the-post voting system, and Rupert Lowe must know that.
As for Lucy Powell’s support for even more censorship and for a “democracy” where only political parties that accept the totalitarian “diversity and inclusion” (i.e. uniformity and exclusion) agenda are allowed in office (in office – the elected to have no real power to change these policies), well at least the lady is open about her support for tyranny – and open in her hatred for the British people.
There are two stages in establishment reaction to the truth (the truth on any subject – which they call “disinformation”).
First – “this is not happening – you paranoid conspiracy theorist”.
But later – “this is happening, and it is a good thing, you bigot!”
She is echoing the attitude of the establishment German parties towards the AFD. I have news for her; the idea that parties are a threat to democracy because they have become popular by putting forward policies you disagree with is utterly risible. As Natalie says, that proposition makes you the threat.
Incidentally, clicking on the Guardian link brings up a piece inviting you to support it on the basis that it is part of an independent media that stands up for the truth! The Guardian’s self-regard is always entertaining.
This is a shocker…
It is the repeated use of the word “moral” that first got me.
Then there is this…
Putting out fires is now political? The whole thing is really worth reading. Not least because Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service has a ‘race and faith staff network’. And the main thrust of their argument is their network is under threat. Basically their jobs. I bet ya neither Carl Petch and Humaira Ahmed have ever run into a burning building to save a life. That their “jobs” even exist is a disgrace. That they will be earning more than the folks who actually do the work of the Fire Brigade is the point where tragedy and farce become indistinguishable.
But, wait…
That is their network, It isn’t the fire brigade’s. Their definition of “safe” isn’t what mine is for people who do an intrinsically physically dangerous job. They don’t want to be bullied by the boss. They want the boss to get them better ladders and pumps. These guys aren’t (shouldn’t be?) shrinking violets. If a fire breaks out in my home I don’t want a diversity co-ordinator, I want Steve McQueen!
It has come to the End of Days when the fire service values woke above putting out fires.
David Norman,
The Guardian’s continual claims to be “independent” are risible. But useful. They have taught me one fact. Nobody is. The honest freely admit where their worldview comes from and the dishonest claim impartiality.
Glass houses?
In which case Lucy Powell cannot complain if Keir Rodney Starmer and the Labour Party disappear from social media entirely? It takes a lot of brass faced nerve to assert that the current government are good state actors and beyond criticism.
… Reform’s “exploitation of online algorithms on social media sites is well documented”
Really? By whom? As they say on Wikipedia, citation needed.
NickM,
You seem to be equating ‘independent’ with ‘impartial’. I think of the Guardian as being independent, in the sense that it is supported by the Scott trust and readers who choose to contribute, but highly partial and, as you indicate, dishonest in its claim to be impartial. The standing up for the truth bit really gets me, particularly in the light of the hysterical climate bilge it routinely produces.
I entirely agree that the report on what is happening at the Manchester Fire and Rescue Service is shocking. I sometimes think I have become so cynical that nothing can surprise me but then this happens and I find that I’m surprised as well as shocked. It is completely disgraceful.
Democracy means “people power”.
Its my assertion that we have the minimum power to be classed as a Democracy. A single moment every five years where we exercise power.
This situation has created a system where any government can hand over its powers to an offshore set of government institutions where our representation is a minority.
Any government can lock up people for speaking against it.
Any government can bring in millions of people to change our demography and downgrade native British people.
Any government can allow several million illegal immigrants to come here and stay.
The British people are next to powerless. We dismiss a party from government who failed us. The other major party of government are many times worse and we have no legal means to remove them. Policies progressed by both parties have lead us to Henry Nowak.
David Betz postulates we have illegitimate government. That is only possible when the people are powerless. Our options are rioting. Or the other actions mentioned by him.
“Threat to bureaucracy” would be closer to the truth.
Only three weeks?
I seem to remember it took longer in 2024.
+1
Stuart,
I don’t think choosing your overseer is actually democracy, massa.
Of course the British government is illegitimate, and it knows it is. That’s why it lashes out when questioned rather than explain how a policy was arrived at and how it benefits the nation.
I take the opportunity to write about a theory that i developed over the last week:
There are partially different reasons for the establishment allowing mass immigration and discouraging integration, in the US on one side, and “Europe” (including the EU and UK in this context) on the other side.
In the US, immigration (especially illegal) is mostly about getting fraudulent votes from non-citizens. This is not possible in “Europe” (not to the extent needed to influence elections), because of strict checks on voting fraud.
In “Europe”, immigration is a benefit to the establishment mostly by justifying restrictions on free speech. This is not possible, or at least not easy, in the US, because of the 1st Amendment.
Roué le Jour
I disagree. Every indication from them suggests they believe in their own legitimacy no matter how few vote or how hated they are. Despite how many people vote for whatever party in local elections. No matter how many people say Starmers a wanker.
Our law stands that we have general elections no less than every five years.
Roué le Jour,
Hernando de Soto (the 20th century one) agrees with you.
Hernando De Soto, Economist and Peruvian Central Bank Director, Interview, PBS American Interests, January 6, 1990
The truth is that those who routinely lean on dodgy terms like misinformation and disinformation to decry public discourse are not to be trusted in any way.
Stuart,
Two separate issues. A government may be quite confident it has the right to rule, but at the same time is fully aware that it is not governing in the interests of the people, which would arguably make it illegitimate. See any government of occupation, for example, which the British government increasingly resembles.
Roue le Jour – a government, or rather establishment (to make it clear this is not just the elected government) may, deep down, have little confidence in the “official line” it pushes – and so seek to censor dissent, because it knows it can not really answer it.
Hence the 1965 Act in Britain – which was NOT just about demanding that migrants be employed and housed and so on (forcing private individuals and companies do these things – or be guilty of the “crime” of “discrimination”) – no previous migrant groups had ever had such statutes passed for them, when my great grandfather came to Britain people were quite free NOT to employ Jews or house Jews (ditto the Irish side of my family – no one was forced to employ or house them either) – but, as already said, the 1965 Act went further than that – it started the process of making peaceful verbal and written dissent a “crime”.
We were told that only very “extreme” statements would be punished as “crimes” – but a whole series of Acts of Parliament passed after the 1965 Act have made it clear that the establishment (again not just elected governments) want to make peaceful verbal and written dissent a “crime”.
Deep down the establishment know that the “new society” they are creating is not in the interests of the British people (indeed, eventually – in the long term, will end the British people) – that is why they are making dissent (counter arguments) a “crime”.
They do not have to “win the argument” if they make arguing against them a criminal offense – “hate speech”.
It is much the same in other Western countries – remember the “British establishment” is really just a branch of the international establishment.
But not untrue material.
Marius – correct.
And nor is this just about Western Europe.
In South Korea people, in some areas, went to vote in local elections only to find there were no ballot papers, and the results of the elections were announced whilst people were still trying to vote (think about that – the results announced before the polls had closed).
The former President of South Korea knew what the pro People’s Republic of China left-establishment in South Korea were trying to do – what their agenda was, and he tried to defeat it. But he failed.
All this is what the international establishment mean by “democracy”.
Paul,
Speaking of democracy, one of the things that has occured to me is that people often foolishly talk of this president or that prime minister refusing to step down at the end of their term when in fact it is the bureaucracy (the government employees) that organizes and implements elections and thus it is the bureaucracy that could quite easily refuse to hold an election and there is nothing much anyone could do about it. Just a thought.
Los Angeles – watch the left “finding” votes.
We are supposed to believe that the Castro supporting Mayor, Karen Bass, came first – in spite of Los Angeles falling apart and a leftist activist burning down hundreds of homes last year (oh yes it was arson by a leftist activist – not “Climate Change” as the media pretended) – a city falling apart, and the worst Mayor in the history of the city “comes first”.
And now we are supposed to believe that a Communist (the “Democratic Socialists of America” was founded by a Marxist – Mr Harrington) from Sir Lanka (Ceylon) came second.
And we are supposed to believe that Spencer Pratt, who made all the running in the campaign, came third.
If (IF) the left stick to these lies – then it is time for President Trump to act. If need be by invoking the Insurrection Act – yes things are that serious.
Rigged elections are NOT democracy – in spite of the “conservative” Wall Street Journal supporting the rigging of the election for Governor of Arizona in 2022.
I remember Nigel Farage going to Arizona and sitting with Kari Lake – everyone knew the election was being rigged, rigged against the voters – but the “conservative” Wall Street Journal (representing the Credit Bubble bankers and other such) said – “nothing to see here, move along”.
So it is not just the left who subverts democracy – it is also cowardly, corrupt, “conservatives” such as the Wall Street Journal and the country club types it represents.
For example, the four “Republican” United States Senators who just voted against honest elections.
There should be paper ballots (not machines), one election day, and no voting without presenting proof of identity – of citizenship, and the votes should be counted in public. No tidal wave of “mail-in ballots” which have nothing to do with real voters.
If the establishment (both the official left – and the cowards and worse of the establishment “right”) say “no” – then democracy is dead.
Please supply evidence.
My apologies – the other Marxist candidate for the Mayor of Los Angeles (the existing Marxist, and pro Castro, Mayor being Karen Bass – the worst Mayor in the history of Los Angeles) is NOT from Sri Lanka – the lady is an Indian Tamil, not one from Ceylon.