Deceit is at the heart of Tory election campaign

The Conservative campaign headquarters press office Twitter account was renamed “factcheckUK” during Tuesday evening’s ITV broadcast in a cynical bid to deceive people (Report, 20 November). The popular term for this deception is “fake news”.

An abuse of this scale, whereby party propaganda is presented as fact, is a serious breach of both the spirit and letter of the law.

To purport to be a politically neutral fact-checking service using a fake Twitter handle at the very moment the prime minister is answering questions on integrity indicated an astonishing lack of political judgment.

Frankly the foreign secretary’s response on the BBC Breakfast Show on Wednesday that “no one gives a toss” indicates just how much scorn the Tory party has for both the concerns of the people of this country and the rule of law.

The Twitter stunt was a deliberate attempt by the national campaign HQ of a political party to mislead the public and a clear breach of electoral law.

I have written to the regulatory body, the Electoral Commission, to remind them that the action clearly breaches section 143 of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and have asked that they seek an assurance from the Tory party that it would not repeat the behaviour.

I have also written to James Cleverly, chairman of the Tory party, to institute an inquiry into the incident – particularly into who sanctioned this deception.
John Howarth
Labour MEP for South East England

• It is outrageous that the Conservative leadership, having increasingly shown an utter disregard for the truth, should disguise their unique perception of reality behind the cloak of a bogus fact-check service. Genuine services of this type are currently working overtime but lack the exposure enjoyed in the various media by government members.

An additional affront to democracy is the almost total refusal of senior Conservatives to answer the questions asked of them by journalists or members of the public. One wonders if Central Office organised pulmonary development classes recently to allow them to speak almost interminably without drawing breath. Their intention is to replace an interview with a party political broadcast.

The latest example was Sajid Javid on BBC Breakfast on Thursday morning repeatedly refusing to acknowledge or correct Boris Johnson’s massively inflated claim of a £500 rather than £85 annual tax cut from the proposed national insurance threshold adjustment.
Charlie Duncan
Oxford

• I read the article by Peter Oborne with increasing incredulity (It’s not just the lies – it’s that the media let him get away with it, 19 November).

Although I was fully aware of the many lies that had been issued through many media sources I was not aware that they had categorically and cynically been undertaken deliberately to fool the public to vote for them.

I agree strongly with the philosopher Sissela Bok, who considers “political lying” to be a form of theft. It means the voters made and make democratic judgments on the basis of falsehoods.

For the last three and half years since the Brexit referendum result I have written and spoken to anyone willing to listen, to say that the decision made by individuals was based on a foundation of lies, dishonesty and misrepresentation and therefore not a true representation of a democratic vote.

Oborne says senior BBC executives told him that “they personally think it’s wrong to expose lies told by a British prime minister because it undermines trust in British politics”.

How dare they make that decision for us? Perhaps if they had confirmed it to the public three and a half years ago we would not be in the mess we are in now. I feel it will be a long time before I can again trust the BBC to be independent.
Sheila Harvey
Nunthorpe, North Yorkshire

• Peter Oborne is incorrect in suggesting that the BBC thinks it’s wrong to expose lies told by politicians. The BBC is committed to calling out lies, disinformation or untruths – no matter who tells them. That is what our journalists do on a daily basis. With Reality Check we are doing more than ever at this election. What we don’t do is label people as liars – that’s a judgment for audiences to make about an individual’s motives.
David Jordan
Director, editorial policy and standards, BBC

• What Peter Oborne highlights is a worrying decline in the political discourse. The lying and sharp practice is corrosive of democracy. A man who achieves power through lying and sharp practice lacks legitimacy. Such a government led by an acknowledged liar and trickster will lack authority.

This government lacking authority will be unable to govern through the usual democratic processes, as it can’t command either respect or loyalty. Such a government can only govern by short-circuiting the democratic process, so avoiding scrutiny and oversight.

Boris Johnson has already shown a willingness to do so with his proroguing of parliament. Those voting Conservative in the next election may well be voting for an end to parliamentary democracy as it is currently understood.
Derrick Joad
Leeds

• Did Boris Johnson really visit a fabrication yard in Stockton-on-Tees on Wednesday (Issue of trust stalks PM on election trail, 21 November)? I haven’t stopped laughing!
Steve Holloway
Chichester, West Sussex

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition