I just want to make him deny it

Are minor untruths deliberately used to set off a loud debate and increase exposure?

Jo Swinson’s first few days were what you would expect for a newly minted Lib Dem leader. Go around, give a few interviews, try to make your voice heard in the general noise. Chip away at the disaffected voters from the main parties. Rule out a coalition with the Tories to not scare off Labour voters, rule out a coalition with Jeremy Corbyn to likewise not scare off Tory ones. (Everyone, of course, knows she will happily jump into a coalition with either, but one has to keep up appearances).

But Swinson went a step further. She made a clear factual error by suggesting Jeremy Corbyn took a two week holiday during the referendum campaign in 2016. She must have known it was not true (Corbyn went for a long weekend): it could have merely been a simple embellishment of the truth on her part.

Or was it? It was absolutely needless — just stating that Jeremy Corbyn went on holiday (with no mention of its length) would have sufficed. Unless, that is, she actually wanted this argument. Was there a deliberate ploy to force Labour into responding and start a discussion of Corbyn’s supposed part in the referendum outcome? It may have helped keep both Swinson’s interview and her party in the headlines for a little bit longer. As Lyndon Johnson allegedly said, ‘I just want to make him deny it’.

There is a clear associated political cost — people see you and your party being very economical with the truth indeed. (A cynic would say that in the Lib Dems’ case that would not come as a surprise to most.) Perhaps, a party lacking the media coverage of its bigger rivals might still think it worth it. The hope is for people to assume that even though a fact is wrong, the general sentiment is right —even if Corbyn might not have actually gone on holiday for two weeks, he supposedly did not try hard enough for Remain. Labour, successfully provoked into a response, might be made to look petty and not seeing the wood for the trees, especially in the eyes of those who do not care about small detail.

A similar story happened with the infamous Panorama program about anti-semitism in Labour. The program quoted a number of statements out of context and generally seemed to be inaccurate in ways that did not appear necessary. Labour pointed this out and started pursuing avenues for legal recourse. The program’s defenders claimed that the quotes were accurate and do not detract from the main gist: ok, but if so, why not quote them in full, why not ensure you cannot be criticised. Is it oversight or is it deliberate, as with Swinson, in order to provoke Labour into pointing those factual errors out? Then, they can be accused of being insensitive and of trying to shoot the messenger.

If I am right and inaccuracies are intentionally inserted to increase exposure, it makes for a sad state of affairs. We already have plenty of fake news and alt-facts flying around as it is without adding in errors made for no particular political gain, merely to start a loud verbal fight. If everybody starts doing this, small errors are only the beginning. Antes will be upped and upped in a constant bidding process for attention. The errors will get more and more significant. Trust in politics will be further eroded as politicians are seen to make simple factual errors.

Swinson has plenty to answer for as it is regarding her record in power in 2010–5. This is a problem, as friendly relations between the Lib Dems and Labour are so crucial to stopping no-deal Brexit and opposing the government — however the actions of that coalition government just cannot be forgotten so easily. To forget would mean forgetting the victims — the clearly disabled asked to undergo assessments and in many cases found fit for work, the victims of the benefit sanctions and of the hostile environment, British people who could not bring in their non-EU spouse into this country… This is a step too far. Of course, one could instead try to forgive and focus on Brexit — but for that to happen the Lib Dems need to promise to actually reverse those changes, undo the cuts, scrap austerity altogether. This is unlikely — Swinson is yet to even fully apologise.

The excuse trotted out is that the Lib Dems were the junior partner in a coalition which they felt compelled to keep together for stability’s sake. That made sense in 2010. It might have made sense in 2011, for the sake of the AV referendum. However, when the Chancellor was booed at the Paralympics and damaging pieces of legislation such as the Health and Social Care act were passed, the Lib Dems should have stood firm, should have drawn red lines. They never did — those ministerial perks were just too hard to give up. They therefore own the record of that administration in its entirety.

How do we get over this austerity impasse, at a time many are still suffering from it? It can only be through grown-up dialogue, allowing one to forge a temporary alliance against the Right whilst continuing to criticise each other for past wrongs. It requires being honest with each other. Cheap gimmicks based on minor falsehoods might give you that short period of exposure you may crave, but long-term they are all the more damaging at this moment.