Maybe I am a starry-eyed idealist, but I want to vote for people who take a position of high morality.”

What I find depressing is that the accepted rule of thumb within the party seems now to be that it’s OK to be as misleading as you like, provided you don’t tell an outright lie.

In the London elections last year I was delivering leaflets with a “two-horse-race” bar chart based on the borough, even though the constituency for the assembly was two boroughs stuck together, which left us in a poor third place.

And the annoying thing is that it’s not only dishonest, but stupid. It may result in a short-term gain of a few votes in a seat that’s unwinnable anyway, but for everyone who’s hoodwinked by it there’s going to be someone else who sees it for exactly what it is. Or – worse – doesn’t look at it closely enough to see that it’s a half-truth, and concludes that it’s an outright lie!

Maybe I am a starry-eyed idealist, but I want to vote for people who take a position of high morality.

To take a recent story as an example, Richard Lochhead (SNP) campaigned for a bybass but has failed to deliver this.

Should we still vote for him?

Surely that is just rewarding failure and as a progressive I find it hard to take such a step

Yes. We all know what message these “two horse race” bar charts are meant to convey. You know it just as well as I do.

Can you put your hand on your heart and say you’re giving the benefit of the doubt in this matter and not automatically assuming the worst?

Take this piece:
“There are two competing histories of the Middle East conflict, two competing narratives of right and wrong, and of political responsibility for the failure of previous peace efforts. Yet there is little secret about how the conflict would finally be settled, if it is to be settled politically at all. The internet can be a civic space where creative efforts are made to build the mutual empathy on which peace depends.”

I’m not going to list electoral humilations I have known but an 8% vote gain isn’t anywhere near that territory.

That wasn’t what I asked.

The question was, can you put your hand on your heart and say you honestly believe that the leaflet was _not_ intended to convey to the casual reader the impression that the by election was a “two-horse race, between Labour and the Lib Dems?

If there was no intention to mislead, you should have no difficulty answering that question with a simple “Yes”.

Bored now. Feel free to argue amongst yourself.

Astonishing!

Are you really willing to put your hand on your heart and say you honestly believe that the leaflet was _not_ intended to convey to the casual reader the impression that the by election was a “two-horse race”, between Labour and the Lib Dems?

I think we do all know what the leaflet’s meant to convey: what it says. Which is all factual.

Still, glad we could help you unload: better out than in.

You really are beyond belief.

Yes there is a get-out – in tiny print, which as a matter of fact is so small that it’s anything but “quite clearly” legible on the link you provide.

But you know, and I know, and everybody reading this knows, precisely what a bar chart labelled “It’s a two-horse race” in a by-election leaflet is meant to convey.

Just as we know what “Tory fact file: 3rd or worse in the last five elections” – in much larger print, of course – is meant to convey.

Of course the leaflet was intended to mislead, and you do yourself no credit at all in trying to defend it. (And I see you’re reduced to personal insults in your very first post on the thread. A new record?)

How is that a blatant attempt to mislead. Do you really have such contempt for the people of Haringey that you think they’re incapable of reading?

No wonder people hold politicians in such contempt.

More a borough-wide two horse race than a ward one, but still a valid point.

Did the Lib Dems really use the “two-horse race” line in a by-election in a ward in Haringey where they had come fourth last time? That must merit some kind of award for sheer, shameless effrontery!

Two nostrils of the same nose.