Section 4 - some of the sub points have examples which makes it easier to get a handle on the context. Suggest adding examples for the sub points that don’t currently have them.
Section 4.2.3 - items 2 & 3 appear to be making a similar point and it’s not clear what you think delineates them. Maybe combine into a single point, or reword to be clearer.
Section 5.4 - the disincentive is more stark I think than you portray. Many activists fear expulsion from the party if they even inadvertently cross a line. I’ve lost count of the number of people that contact various podcasts and ask to remain anonymous for this reason. There should be guidelines for those communicating on behalf of the party but a minimal restriction for ordinary members posting in a private capacity.
Section 7 - you switch between “we” and “they” and it’s not immediately clear you mean the same entity and not the opposition e.g. sub point 1.2 starts off with “we” but then switches to “they” after the semicolon. I had to read this a couple of times before I understood that you meant the Labour Party throughout and that “they” didn’t refer the misinformation spreaders. Suggest substituting the specific entity e.g.. “party” for both “we” and “they” to avoid confusion.
Section 6 - You describe here the changes you propose but the section stops at what the State can do, by which I take you to mean the government. Section 7 deals with what the party can do, as a distinct entity from the government. I think this point would work better as a sub heading under the broader heading of “what can change”. You should also consider adding a 3rd sub header to cover what action the individual can take. Individual action may be limited to countering the instances that we come across in our daily lives that you highlight in point 1, taking some awareness training if you happen to be a party member, educating yourself on how to locate primary sources rather than relying on articles filtered through MSM, etc.
Section 8.1.3 - having a law not to lie would be difficult to prosecute in that nobody knows what’s going on inside another person head. How do you prove it’s a lie and not a genuine error. Philosophically it’s fine but should be accompanied by a requirement to correct an error or falsehood within some set timeframe. You don’t prosecute the lie, you prosecute the failure to correct it.
We probably need to avoid terminology like “militant” that means one thing to party members but often something different and more scary to general public. We definitely need to avoid the typical language you tend to hear at CLP meetings! This really puts people off when talking to them and you seem like a relic from a 70s sitcom. Wolfie Smith was a figure of ridicule even back then, he would be more so today I think.
Finally, the party needs to put its own house in order before calling others out on it. It needs to stop sending into the world its own disinformation e.g. the recent campaign literature done up to look like Reform documents and the adverts targeting Rishi Sunak at the last election. Whichever so called strategist came up with this nonsense should be fired on the spot, but I don’t have an Oxford PPE degree so WTF do I know.
I'm interested in the particular kinds of "disinformation" spread in the online far-right and antiwoke ecosystems, much of which has a kernel of truth but has become twisted and blown out of proportion to become an entirely different story:
Let's take the grooming gangs scandal for example. According to some of these podcasters and tweeters, it was a nationwide scandal in which tens (or hundreds) of thousands of white working class british girls were raped by Pakistani men, with the knowledge of "the elites" who allowed it to happen because of their hatred of the white working class, and their relgion of diversity. The truth, where it's possible that the more important factor was participation in the night time economy, is less appealing, and less salient.
How does one fight that? Would the online safety act penalise some forms of this "version" of events?
That's a good example of the disinformation Paul is writing about. It's a completely untrue narrative that exploits people's sense of alienation from politics. Right now there is a deluge of AI generated posts on Facebook harking back to the'good old days' of Britains past. It's a crass attempt (probably by Russia because it's so crude!) to contribute this alienation.
'...anything that destabilises society, or destroys belief in democracy, or stigmatises the Labour government, has intrinsic worth'.
This jumped off the page for me. There is still a number of Labour MPs who are doing this. Most recently a Guardian article on line by MP Clive Lewis. They don't realise that all they are doing is singing in the chorus of the anti democracy hard Right.
Some thoughts for consideration
Section 4 - some of the sub points have examples which makes it easier to get a handle on the context. Suggest adding examples for the sub points that don’t currently have them.
Section 4.2.3 - items 2 & 3 appear to be making a similar point and it’s not clear what you think delineates them. Maybe combine into a single point, or reword to be clearer.
Section 5.4 - the disincentive is more stark I think than you portray. Many activists fear expulsion from the party if they even inadvertently cross a line. I’ve lost count of the number of people that contact various podcasts and ask to remain anonymous for this reason. There should be guidelines for those communicating on behalf of the party but a minimal restriction for ordinary members posting in a private capacity.
Section 7 - you switch between “we” and “they” and it’s not immediately clear you mean the same entity and not the opposition e.g. sub point 1.2 starts off with “we” but then switches to “they” after the semicolon. I had to read this a couple of times before I understood that you meant the Labour Party throughout and that “they” didn’t refer the misinformation spreaders. Suggest substituting the specific entity e.g.. “party” for both “we” and “they” to avoid confusion.
Section 6 - You describe here the changes you propose but the section stops at what the State can do, by which I take you to mean the government. Section 7 deals with what the party can do, as a distinct entity from the government. I think this point would work better as a sub heading under the broader heading of “what can change”. You should also consider adding a 3rd sub header to cover what action the individual can take. Individual action may be limited to countering the instances that we come across in our daily lives that you highlight in point 1, taking some awareness training if you happen to be a party member, educating yourself on how to locate primary sources rather than relying on articles filtered through MSM, etc.
Section 8.1.3 - having a law not to lie would be difficult to prosecute in that nobody knows what’s going on inside another person head. How do you prove it’s a lie and not a genuine error. Philosophically it’s fine but should be accompanied by a requirement to correct an error or falsehood within some set timeframe. You don’t prosecute the lie, you prosecute the failure to correct it.
We probably need to avoid terminology like “militant” that means one thing to party members but often something different and more scary to general public. We definitely need to avoid the typical language you tend to hear at CLP meetings! This really puts people off when talking to them and you seem like a relic from a 70s sitcom. Wolfie Smith was a figure of ridicule even back then, he would be more so today I think.
Finally, the party needs to put its own house in order before calling others out on it. It needs to stop sending into the world its own disinformation e.g. the recent campaign literature done up to look like Reform documents and the adverts targeting Rishi Sunak at the last election. Whichever so called strategist came up with this nonsense should be fired on the spot, but I don’t have an Oxford PPE degree so WTF do I know.
I'm interested in the particular kinds of "disinformation" spread in the online far-right and antiwoke ecosystems, much of which has a kernel of truth but has become twisted and blown out of proportion to become an entirely different story:
Let's take the grooming gangs scandal for example. According to some of these podcasters and tweeters, it was a nationwide scandal in which tens (or hundreds) of thousands of white working class british girls were raped by Pakistani men, with the knowledge of "the elites" who allowed it to happen because of their hatred of the white working class, and their relgion of diversity. The truth, where it's possible that the more important factor was participation in the night time economy, is less appealing, and less salient.
How does one fight that? Would the online safety act penalise some forms of this "version" of events?
That's a good example of the disinformation Paul is writing about. It's a completely untrue narrative that exploits people's sense of alienation from politics. Right now there is a deluge of AI generated posts on Facebook harking back to the'good old days' of Britains past. It's a crass attempt (probably by Russia because it's so crude!) to contribute this alienation.
'...anything that destabilises society, or destroys belief in democracy, or stigmatises the Labour government, has intrinsic worth'.
This jumped off the page for me. There is still a number of Labour MPs who are doing this. Most recently a Guardian article on line by MP Clive Lewis. They don't realise that all they are doing is singing in the chorus of the anti democracy hard Right.