Make no mistake, in this era of post-factual politics, it is quite possible for someone who embellished their CV, claimed to establish groups she did not establish, and denied saying things she clearly said could become Prime Minister on the basis of offering to deliver something she cannot deliver. I am wary of even naming her for fear of giving the post-truthers something else to latch on to.
Yet this is not by any means confined to the Conservative Party or the Right. Indeed, for nearly a decade now, the Left has been moaning about “austerity” when in fact none has been applied (“austerity” requires the gap between taxes raised and public spending including welfare to decline, something which has simply not happened).
This may have slipped by too:
The Chilcot report runs to literally millions of words – it would take nine days to read it. However, it says absolutely none of those three things, something about which Chilcot himself could not have been clearer.
The Greens often like to talk about “evidence-based politics” but here is a clear-cut case of someone wanting a report to say something, then assuming that it will, and then reporting that it has – when in fact it hasn’t. Thousands of people retweet it unthinkingly, not stopping to question it.
One LBC correspondent described it as “anti-analysis”. Perfect for a “post-factual” age which afflicts all sides. Should we not all be rather better than this?