UKC

Should there be severe sanctions for politicians who brazenly lie to the electorate, especially during elections and referenda?

It sickens me to see it normalised (particularly by Theresa May during this election), it subverts democracy, it's extremely damaging and it's morally wrong. I'm not talking about putting a bit of spin on things, I'm talking about bare-faced demonstrable lies. Why should we accept it?

Here's Krishnan Guru-Murthy pulling-up David Davis on it:

youtube.com/watch?v=lZ49aAP6ZpE&

Oh, and if DD is going to be a leading figure in Brexit negotiations we're f*cked. Look at the state of the man.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

You mean like Corbyn's claim last night that he has a strong team ready to negotiate Brexit. The implication also being that a year's hard work has gone into preparing his strategy and not that he's frantically winging it.

Whatever you think of the other lot, beyond Keir Starmer, whom I like, he doesn't appear to have anyone with an ounce of commercial nous.

So please, go ahead. Defend that claim without slagging off the Tories. What you think of them isn't relevant to the claim or the question.

In reply to BnB:

He's asking if the Tories constant lying and u-turning has gotten so bad that it justifies legislating against.

Stick to the topic or eff orf man.

In reply to BnB:


You appear to misunderstand the difference between opinion and checkable fact. Can you explain why you think it's a bad idea to introduce sanctions for politicians who demonstrably lie?

In reply to Oldsign:


Indeed. I'm talking about all parties, not just the Tories, although maybe because of my inherent bias I notice it more in them.

I shouldn't have taken it off-topic myself by commenting on DD, but it was pretty clear to all but the clinically obtuse that that wasn't the point of the OP.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

When did I say I disagree with you. I was simply offering a barefaced lie from the other side of the spectrum to balance your allegations against the other. Name Labour's Brexit team please and justify their qualifications for the job, Starmer aside.

In reply to BnB:

Firstly, it's not a partisan debate about who has and hasn't lied. It's about the principle of politicians seeking election lying to the electorate in a demonstrable way.

Secondly, in your apparently tit-for-tat response you appear to me to have chosen an example that is a matter of opinion rather than demonstrable fact.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Each manifesto is an exercise in obfuscation. The Tories aren't explaining where the money's coming from but instead are relying on their record of balancing the books to convince voters. Labour has a tax policy that we, and more importantly the IFS, all know won't generate more than half the funds necessary. Are these lies by your definition or spin?

And as, in the latter case at least, the results will be verifiable in due course, should Labour win, and could have devastating consequences for the economy, would you take action when that probability transpires?

In reply to BnB:


If they are relying on that, God help them.

And us, if we believe them

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Defined by deficit reduction, the very definition of "balancing the books", the Tories score an unequivocal pass, if not at the pace they anticipated. The reduction comes hand in hand with unpopular policies however which I think is what you're angling at. But they did promise Austerity.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


What do you mean by sanctions? Making lying illegal sounds impossible to me. We all do it for various reasons and it is a very nebulous concept. The only workable way is to make lying in public life socially unacceptable by, for example, making those who are seen to lie for political advancement unelectable. It's a social, peer pressure type of thing and sort of comes down to the idea of getting the politicians we deserve.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I agree with you, I was particularly sickened by Boris Johnson's blatant £350 million for the NHS during the referendum campaign blazoned all over his battle bus. I was a Remainer and I blame him (along with Corbyn's lack lustre performance) for the terrible mess Brexit is now causing the country. I know quite a few people, particularly elderly and vulnerable folk who were taken in by that lie.

If you lie in a Court of Law you perjure yourself and can go to prison. The same should apply to election and referenda claims. It would make politicians a lot more thorough and careful before they open their mouths. I would even go so far as to suggest that if it is shown that voters were unduly influenced by an outright lie, the vote result should be declared void.

But that's probably my Remoaner side showing now

In reply to BnB:

No, not angling at that. Just judging them by the manifesto commitments on 'balancing the books' they made prior to previous elections- deficit eliminated by end of 2010-2015 parliament, then 2020, now 2025. If you believe them this time, and why would you?

The idea that the current generation of tories are the guardians of financial stability is about as convincing as the one that they are the party that will be tough on immigration, and bring the numbers down to the 'tens of thousands'- i.e. it flies in the face of all evidence. Yet still people seem to fall for it

In reply to BnB:

David Davis is the Tories chief of brexit.... I think it's tantamount to a barefaced lie to desribe him as competent. You or someone else might disagree.... not reaslly the same as actual direct lie.

Keir Starmer is obviously not a complete moron, so relative to the tories, Labout have a strong team.

In reply to MG:


Seems to be enforceable in other walks of life - perjury for example.

We get the politicians we deserve if we are apathetic about them lying. I started a thread about Theresa May and her take on the decision not to charge the Tory MPs over election expenses. In that case she was either blindingly thick or stood in front of the electorate and told abare-faced lie. Nobody could give a shit. Why not?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


It's a tactic of dictators to use the courts to lock up those who lost the election.

Cries for "Lock her up" do not end well.

In reply to elsewhere:

There's a lot of room between those 2, and we have an independent judiciary in this country!

In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I'd like something a little more instantaneous, like a firm swipe across the back of the knuckles with a ruler, every time a politician refuses to give a straight answer to a straight question.

In reply to elsewhere:

Oh, and "lock her up" is a strange example to use - the "crime" was not related to lying and was made by a compulsive liar now President of the USA.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Because the alternative comes out worse under the same scrutiny, of course.

In reply to Stichtplate:


Or wire their nether regions to an electric current.

In reply to BnB:


Off topic, but this is rather interesting:

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-t...

In reply to BnB:

That's only a matter of opinion. There is no entirely relevant counter factual , but other countries took different approaches and have not seen such prolonged restrictions in investment in public services, or real terms loss of living standards. It may have been the only realistic way of proceeding in 2010, and even that's not knowable with certainty, but it is certainly not the only conceivable option now.

So adding 'of course' to what is simply a statement of opinion doesn't make it right; and choosing to believe the same people when they make the same claims for a third time that have been wrong twice already shows a touching degree of faith, or perhaps something else

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Yes I've studied that. But borrowing and the deficit are very different things, although people conflate them constantly. It could be argued that every penny of Tory borrowing since 2010 is actually Labour borrowing because it derives from a deficit that the Tories inherited and which they have to eliminate before it becomes possible to reduce borrowing.

I'm not ignoring the possibility (and I haven't checked) that Blair inherited a deficit from Major and this goes back ad infinitum, but a granular analysis does show that Labour accelerated borrowing during the growth phase when most governments would have been paying it down.

In reply to BnB:


To be fair, we're almost year on from the Brexit vote and the Conservatives still have appear no plan and no vision. So let's say Labour is on equal footing on that issue.

In reply to BnB:

Well, yes it could indeed be argued. But 8 years and 3 administrations on from the last time labour were in power, most people would be inclined to dismiss that argument, and I think they'd be right to do so.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


It's an idea, but I'm afraid more than a few front benchers would pay good money for such treatment.

In reply to elsewhere:


I think most people would prefer "Burn the witch" or "Off with her head"

In reply to BnB:

I'll kindly recommend you to check again your numbers. When Tony Blair took office Debt/GDP was at around 44%. In 2007 it was at 42%. The house was mostly kept in order, there was no particular reason to reduce debt further at this time given that these were very low levels by international standards anyway.

Of course the financial crisis then hit and national debt climbed to stellar highs due to a depressed economy and massive banks bail out, in a similar fashion to what happened in many other similar economies, although more acute. But that's was simply the result of the UK economy being structurally more prone to boom and bust and of the importance the financial sector to our economy, I'm not too sure where the blame lies for that but it's certainly not solely the fault of any given party.

What's interesting is what happens after 2010 though, the Conservative did slow down, moderately, the rate at which the debt was increasing, but by less than what other similar Europeans economies managed. They've reduced the deficit as a % of GDP by barely as much as France did, despite having pretty much three times the growth rate and much lower unemployment, and an influx of working age immigration. I'm sorry but that was a not a terrific performance .

My humble assessment is simply that they've focused mostly on cutting services and welfare, and did not hike up taxes, to preserve economic growth. France did the opposite, they've hiked up taxes and didn't cut services, and ended up with more or less the same result, but with significantly less growth.
However the Germans were a bit more pragmatic and less ideology driven (in other words, competent ?) and they did a bit of both which proved very effective.

Cameron's strategy was not all that bad, they basically bet on economic growth for the recovery,not entirely stupid.
Where they've made a critical (fatal ?) error, it's simply that they've ignored the long-term view.
With all the ills and exclusion their harsh cuts to public services and welfare did to the social fabric, combined with an economic growth model based mostly on an influx of foreign workers, it was bound to happen that it would come back to bite them in the face. And it did. Spectacularly.

In reply to BnB:
The key figures in the Labour Brexit team are clearly Starmer and Thornberry. For Corbyn to say this is a strong team isn't a lie, it is opinion. An opinion you can either agree or disagree with.

In reply to Trangia:


Boris has a long record of blatant lies, dating back to his time as a journalist, making up 'EU regulations'. His Facebook posts at the moment are full of lies about labour policy.

In reply to BnB:

You probably should do some fact checking. In 2008 the national debt was considerably smaller (as % of GDP) than it was in 1997 and whilst in 2008 the government was running a small deficit after several years of surplus, it was around half (as % of GDP) what it was in 1997. Clearly things happened globally in 2007/2008 which had a major impact on tax revenues, but this suggestion that Labour were spending with abandon is not supported by fact.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It's also worth adding that in around 2012 the Tories had a major policy change around austerity, noticing that they were strangling the economy, they revised the targets, to something much closer to what the Labour Party proposed and what at the time the Tories described as economic suicide.

In reply to The New NickB:

I suspect that was he refers to is simply the increase in current budget deficit between 2003 and 2007, after several years of surpluses. Frankly I don't think it is a very relevant in the bigger picture, they were small and short lived, it virtually would have made no difference whatsoever if they had been running a small surplus instead during those years.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


I don't think conducting politics by trial and court case is really practicable.


Correct

In reply to The New NickB:


Do you think the Labour Party would have stuck to their plan or spent more? My view was Cameron/Osborne promised to spend too little and were forced by circumstance to get it about right, or at least not catastrophically wrong. I think Labour would have spent vastly more with bad consequences. Of course it's all catastrophic anyway as a result of Brexit.

In reply to MG:


I really can't see why not, although I accept that politicians being politicians there would be a load of tit for tat whinges.

In reply to MG:

Based on the previous 13 years, the evidence would suggest a fair degree of prudence. Remember if Labour had won in 2010, it would have been Brown and Darling.

Hindsight tells us that they devised a much more realistic plan.

In reply to The New NickB:

As far as I recall, there was a reasonable degree of recovery in place when the Coalition took power.

In reply to The New NickB:
Actually, i agree there, Darling I think was unlucky timing wise, to have Brown as leader,and underrated. I was thinking more of Milliband.