WITHIN minutes of its utterance, Kellyanne Conway’s phrase ‘alternative facts’ joined the annals of political expediency, nestling alongside Sir Robert Armstrong’s famous description of a misleading impression (not a lie, you understand) as ‘being economical with the truth’.

In an attempt to belittle the worldwide protests against President Trump (2.6 million people taking part in the biggest demonstration seen in America since the Vietnam war) his press secretary had claimed that he attracted the largest audience ever to witness inauguration. This was instantly disputed by the American Press who reported that by any feasible measure (number of journeys on the subway, headcount in photographs, global viewers on TV) more people actually attended or watched President Obama’s inauguration in 2009 than Donald Trump’s in 2017.

One of his advisers, when later asked to explain the discrepancy between fact and the false White House claims, came up with the phrase that his press secretary had not been lying but merely offering ‘alternative facts’. Political commentators were flabbergasted by a lie that was so crude and so demonstrably not true.

During his campaign Trump repeatedly uttered wild and false statements which grabbed the headlines and delighted his supporters – also a characteristic of the Brexit campaign this side of the Atlantic. Many claimed that this feature of modern politics was in great measure responsible for the ill repute into which the political process had fallen – too many lies told by too many politicians who then refuse to be held to account.

Do not be misled. This is important. It is not simply an outrageous and colourful event happening on the other side of the Atlantic. It is a gross example of something that is corrosive, pervasive and prevalent: the simple denial or gainsaying of facts when they are either inconvenient or contradict an argument that is being presented.

At one time if politicians disagreed with something they would argue their case, we could look at the claims being presented on both sides and make up our own minds. Now it appears we have descended to something far worse – the simple denial of facts that are inconvenient or the blatant and knowing perpetration of outright falsehoods in order to pursue a political end. And most political campaigners now know that the more a ‘fact’ is repeated the more it becomes accepted. But that doesn’t make it true and it doesn’t mean you have won the argument – it just means that you have silenced the opposition and effectively set a political agenda.

For democracy to work, the electorate have to make an informed choice. Once politicians elected to office treat their public with contempt and feed them facts that are ‘alternative’ (ie. lies) the line between democracy and dictatorship becomes blurred.

How ironic that Orwell’s 1984 vision of political language becoming corrupted by a ruling elite has now become reality not from dictators, but from democratically elected politicians.