I posted it as an item of interest not something I believed to be factual, your clarification welcome.
Why is socialism even being discussed? From what I gather from anyone even slightly left wing that is not what we have with the current government. At best they are apparently just bland centrists and at worse “Red Tories” who are basically the same as the last lot. At least according to some of the louder voices on the “left” Have we had anything really close to socialism in living memory of many people posting on here?
I'm afraid that's not how it works. You're now officially a dangerous conspiracy theorist and spreader of misinformation. Your formal cancellation is being processed and you'll shortly receive a Russian passport, a brown envelope full of roubles and a sub-dermal implant that will fully convert you into a Russian bot.
That BBC article does raise an interesting question about at what point is something considered a “conspiracy theory”.
I was born a couple of years after the last vaguely socialist government this country ever had left office. The creation of the Welfare State and the National Health Service were among the greatest achievements the human race has ever managed to accomplish, and are examples of socialism its purest form.
Social Democracy was pretty much standard throughout Western Europe from 1945 until around the 1980s. After that point, and particularly after the collapse of Soviet communism, libertarianism began to replace Social Democracy as the predominant Western political philosophy. The free market, left to itself, is now supposed to provide for all our needs, and the mixed economy model, with limited but significant central planning, and a u iversal welfare state, is out of fashion everywhere. Everywhere, that is, except in the always contrary UK; Rachel Reeves, with her plan for growth exemplified by the sovereign wealth fund (an idea borrowed from Nordic countries) has been described by some economists as aiming to be the most interventionist Chancellor since Dennis Healey. Watch this space.
Yeah that is an interesting question. Obviously "conspiracy theory" has become more commonly used since covid and I fear it's being over-used (often to shut down discussions) and over time will become meaningless. I think it's often a silly term to use because a "conspiracy" can mean two people working towards a shared aim in secret and that probably happens millions of times every day. I mean, my son and I have plans for the weekend that we deliberately haven't told my wife about yet. You could call that a CONSPIRACY~!
I’m particularly interested in the BBC framing it this way in this instance when I’m really not sure it is. There were questions / accusations. Don’t conspiracy theories usually need to suggest some kind of broader nefarious intent. So like with the covid thing - a lot of the comments against lockdowns and vaccinations were tinged with ideas of population control by the elites and things like that. That’s when you start getting to conspiracy theory territory. It’s when people say something and you ask “why would “they” do that” and the answer can then be indicative or a “conspiracy” or not In this case the “why would reform fake candidates” is quite easy - because they couldn’t find enough but still wanted to put people up. Turns out it doesn’t seem to be true at all. But it’s not a suggestion of anything overly malevolent. And the questions were raised due to multiple candidates not appearing at their counts. Not solely some picture that happened to look AI generated but weren’t
I assume the BBC are framing it this way in an attempt to appear balanced. They've published a lot of stuff about right-wing conspiracy theories in the past. But it may just be sloppy thinking, I'm afraid I don't think the standard and depth of the BBC's journalism and writing is as good as it was 15 or 20 years ago. Their website used to be fairly serious and heavyweight but over the years they've embraced "listicles" and more frivolous stuff, presumably to get more clicks, and it's not unusual to find spelling and grammar mistakes in articles that I just didn't see years ago. Some of that probably reflects a general trend in the media and a desire to publish quickly. Similarly, I'd say the focus on one individual and how the accusations made them feel is certainly a relatively modern way of approaching this sort of story. I don't think you necessarily need nefarious intent for something to be considered a conspiracy theory. The faked moon landing theory is one of the older ones and (unless there's some aspect to that theory I don't know about) I don't see much nefarious about that. The only real point I could see to faking the moon landings would be to look more technologically advanced than the Soviets.
Nefarious intent was a poor choice. But there needs to seemingly be some kind of intent from a powerful party. That’s what they all spin around But in this case Reform aren’t in that kind of position. The conspiracy theory would be if the electoral commission knew and looked the other way with the claim being they wanted to ensure a conservative defeat. Or something like that at least
Okay, fair. Then I tend to agree. To me it implies a large, powerful group or organisation - often related to or part of a government - trying to deceive the public or cover up something they don't want the public to know about. But then even that framing could include a lot of politics. Most people don't think political parties are entirely honest about their intentions and at a stretch that definition could cover keeping something like Bletchley Park secret during WW2. Tough one.
Some on here are bitcoiners. I accept any currency, I once put an add on Private Eye saying dedicated degenerate seeks benevolent sponsors.
