Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

41
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
61% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Erik Dale 🇳🇴 on X

It's all part of Labour's greater (dark) plan to win in 2029, outlined in this thread: https://t.co/LX5NCAeTU9

Posted by Erik Dale 🇳🇴
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 2/5
No presentation of only two extreme options; vaguely alludes to a plan without binary framing.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 4/5
'Labour's greater (dark) plan' pits the party against implied British interests, heightening us-vs-them division.
Simplistic Narratives 4/5
Reduces politics to a singular 'dark plan' by Labour for 2029 victory, framing it as ruthless scheming versus national good.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic, posted Jan 14, 2026, replying to own viral post on MPs and grooming gangs amid routine Labour digital ID U-turn news, with no correlation to distracting scandals or priming for 2026 locals.
Historical Parallels 2/5
Minor resemblance to past anti-Labour smears like the Zinoviev letter's secret plot allegations, echoing election-rigging conspiracies but lacking strong ties to documented campaigns.
Financial/Political Gain 3/5
Narrative supports anti-Labour ideology benefiting Reform UK and right-wing voices like poster @EuroDale; no specific companies or funding evident, but aligns with opposition political interests.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No suggestion that 'everyone agrees' or widespread consensus on the plan; presents it as a revelation rather than established fact.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 2/5
No pressure for quick opinion change or manufactured momentum; moderate engagement on poster's content reflects steady anti-Labour discourse without trends or astroturfing.
Phrase Repetition 3/5
Shared framing of Labour 'rigging' 2029 via demographics appears in multiple X posts (e.g., importing voters), indicating common right-wing talking points without identical phrasing.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Conspiracy reasoning assumes disparate events form a 'greater (dark) plan' without causal links.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, officials, or authorities cited to bolster claims.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
No data or statistics included to selectively support the narrative.
Framing Techniques 4/5
'(Dark) plan' uses loaded, sinister terminology to bias perception of Labour's standard political strategy as malevolent.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No references to critics or labeling of dissenters negatively.
Context Omission 5/5
Provides zero details on the alleged plan, omitting evidence or specifics and deferring entirely to an external thread link.
Novelty Overuse 3/5
Claims of a 'greater (dark) plan to win in 2029' present an overarching conspiracy as if newly uncovered, heightening intrigue though rooted in common tropes.
Emotional Repetition 2/5
Limited to one emotional trigger '(dark)', with no repeated phrases to amplify outrage.
Manufactured Outrage 4/5
Outrage is generated by labeling Labour's strategy a '(dark) plan' without supporting facts, implying sinister intent disconnected from evidence.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action or mobilization; the post simply references a thread without pressing for response.
Emotional Triggers 4/5
The phrase 'greater (dark) plan' employs ominous, fear-inducing language to evoke suspicion and dread toward Labour's motives.

What to Watch For

Notice the emotional language used - what concrete facts support these claims?
This messaging appears coordinated. Look for independent sources with different framing.
This content frames an 'us vs. them' narrative. Consider perspectives from 'the other side'.
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?

This content shows some manipulation indicators. Consider the source and verify key claims.

Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else