1. The narrow margin in modelling repeatedly shows in probability estimates that the election is not resolved. An average of 16% show up in polling as undecided. Enough to swing many marginal seats. As undecided make up their mind and show up in polls conservative proportionate overall vote share moves up and down in polling. A few weeks back modelling was estimating a Conservative majority at only a 30-40% probability.
2. The idea that all those voting Conservative are rabid immovable Johnson voters is hyperbolic, short cut generalising and likely an attention bias issue.
3. The little people being tricked into voting for something, aside from being condescending and stripping people of their agency, is a line trotted out by all parties in the UK since voting began. It was even an argument used by those who opposed suffrage expansions. The everyone is bias and brain washed but me line is the common fall back position of all those who lose in democracy, a good means to avert introspection. After all introspection is a threat to the ego, just look at Blairites after the results of introspection post 2015 Milliband loss.
4. "A rich media with no incentive to hold the government to account" seems to miss conceptualise the UK media environment but probably most importantly the mechanisms of holding a government to account. The daily readership of the Mail, Sun and Express is only about 2.5 million, probably for gossip. Most people don't invest the time of day to follow politics intently. Governments and political parties run various research methods to sound board policies and weight the data, all for the event that people come to know about it in order to judge favourability.
5. The idea that the US trade leak would finish a government 5 or 10 years ago is odd. Cameron secured a majority 5 years ago despite supporting TTIP, CETA, austerity, the lansley bill etc, do you actually think a bit of suspicion from a US trade conversation would have brought him down?
6. The things you call lies beyond any dispute are awash with ambiguity. They are not as black and white as you read them out to be. For example the idea that NHS isn't for sale is not something that can be met with a true or false response for a reader to make sound judgment. It requires accompanying depth with points that need to be weighted against one another. When something ambiguous is narrowed down to black and white the speaker cheapens the argument and debate. It forces people to pick a side and you will likely lose if the ambiguity makes your emotion look ridiculously over the top. I campaigned against the Lansley Bill and I voted for Jeremy Corbyn to become leader of the Labour party around the same time as he was the most serious about that and austerity at the time. At least back then we had hard proof what was going on. To campaign that more will happen is a political argument based on suspicion, that is an easy win for those accused. It will also normalise the lansley bill by making the NHS about hypothetical ideas and suspicion, making the status quo attached to the argument that it is not for sale.
7. You say the country has gone, but in the words of the Smith's "has the world changed or have I changed?"