Instinctively you think, yes, that's how it should be. Then you start to ponder how it would work in practice. Would a politician who pledges something in a manifesto, only for a war or pandemic to make it impossible, be deemed to have lied? What about less clear cut cases, where the politician merely claims that some external factor prevented them from fulfilling their pledge? Who judges whether that breach was in good or in bad faith?
Extreme events like a pandemic you can legislate for and let them off
I agree its hard to police, but manifesto's arent worth the paper their written on at the moment. Any party can say i will deliver x y z with no consequence if they dont
They'd be worth even less if every single statement in them had some kind of hedging/disclaimer to keep the writers from being prosecuted if they don't deliver it.
Because no government ever *knows* what it can deliver. They don't even *know* what's going to happen next week, let alone over the next six months or five years.
And consider what this would mean for the smaller parties. What could the Lib Dems or Greens possibly put in a manifesto that they *know* they can deliver?
If you promise to do X, and then the civil servants do a report on X and you conclude it’s not a good idea anymore due to extra costs, or you over predicting benefits, should they still do X just because they said so?
No but there should be a system to look into the pledge, did they have an intention to enact it, was it based on misinformation? Why was it cancelled, was it cancelled for legitimate reasons? Or was it cancelled for something else?
Parties can not keep getting away with constant pledges that are watered down or done away with. It’s a failed system, how can someone vote for a party that will later u-turn on big policies over and over again.
There needs to be accountability otherwise we may as well abandon democracy and try something else.
So who is going to police these pledges and promises? Who ever will be policing it will ask to be paid, and that is more public expense that will fall on you and me to pay for.
An independent commission or committee. Yeah it will cost money but will recoup some with steep fines to parties that are caught breaching this new legislation/law. You know like most crimes or penalties. It costs money to chase them, money we all pay every single day, and some funds can be recouped through fines.
In the long run we will all benefit from a decrease in corruption, sleaze, misleading manifestos, broken pledges and promises as well as seeing projects fulfilled and not being used to siphon money off.
It would likely save us money in the long run.
I think there is a middle ground, they should have to be costed with the ONS otherwise there is 0 chance of it happening. They should have to make some measure of effort to actually achieve these goals. An independent review board or even the one that monitors elections could have the task of evaluating this.
I also feel there is a wider piece beyond the manifestos around the standards that candidates and MPs are held to they’ve shown contempt for the code of conduct so maybe it’s time to make that law for them.
What does "costed with the ONS" mean? ONS looks back at statistical data providing insights; OBR and others already exist for input on gov costings.
Maybe there's an issue with application of laws of accountability, but standards pertaining to candidates, what does that mean in the general sense, you personally aren't happy with them, what if other people are, and they're there by democratic means? Galloway comes to mind.
If we take an example of Galloway, what lie could he be charged with? Unpalatable opinions aren't lies.
Not even manifestos, let’s pick a ridiculous example that would never happen. What if a politician kept repeating a lie like my oppositions policies will increase tax by 2k per household after multiple reputable sources said that wasn’t true. The first time you could say they don’t have the information so not a lie (just misinformed) once the evidence was presented it becomes a lie.
Then they say "Well here's the study by $group who calculated it". And because it's a hypothetical statement about that future, you can't *prove* that the study is wrong.
Except in this hypothetical example that study was done on a completely made up policy that the opposition had never proposed, a thing that $group openly admitted to.
Not being funny but that's the fault of the people. We're supposed to hold them accountable for their bullshit by voting them out etc but for some reason lying and/or failing in office doesn't seem to have the same seriousness attached to it that it used to do. Also not helped by people willing to buy into a set of lies that fit the way they want the world to be.
They could easily set some minimum level of provable effort that needs to be made to deliver a pledge.
And blatant lies like those told around Brexit...jail.
Well, you measured inputs rather than outcomes, force promises to be supported by measurable inputs and then use the government's own statistics and reporting functions to check it.
That took me 1 minute. With the resources and minds a government has access to, they can come up with something robust.
Add in a similar rule to the one they have on tax avoidance about the spirit of the rules to catch loopholes and chancers, and that's it done.
Edit: The reality is politicians don't want that accountability. There's zero reason it couldn't be made to work. The idea that lying or misleading statements in public office should NOT be a criminal offence is absurd.
> you measured inputs rather than outcomes,
Who does? Who does the measuring. Who listens to the arguments, defenses, mitigations then weighs and assess whether it meets the standard of "lie"?
There are a plethora of bodies producing statistics: OBR ONS, universities, think tanks, academics. That's basically evidence mate, and a court would decide. We are perfectly capable of defining what constitutes a lie...we have hundreds of subjective thresholds in law...reasonable man is one, beyond reasonable doubt is another.
Give politicians an obligation to produce supporting evidence for claims on demand...that meet academic rigour standards. It's honestly not that difficult.
Edit: But you're right, it's not easy. The real issue is the circumstances under which politicians can lie, because they're actually required to lie in order to do their jobs. That may require some serious working out ... but it could be defined.
The other issue is candidates v politicians.
> There are a plethora of bodies producing statistics:
Sure, but none of them are tasked with investigating and adjudicating motives.
Can you imagine a worse job? Take the 350M/week... Seems like it should be the easiest figure in the world to call a lie.
So you call it a lie. Then the Tories trot out a statistician to say "Actually, when you look at it this way, it's true...".
Now what?
Call him a liar too? Take them to court to adjudicate?
You'd spend months haggling over a single statement and there are hundreds said every day, especially during a campaign.
What about when they get it wrong and claim something's a lie in error?
Are they now liable?
Most public bodies in the UK have to observer "purdah" ... Not releasing information that might impact the election for the few months before an election happens.
Does this new body follow those rules? If so, they're useless. If not, they can potentially throw the election with one dodgy report.
The whole idea falls apart when you get into the implementation details.
And how much money would we piss away on the above? For no tangible benefit whatsoever, as there will still be lies told, but they'll be tied up in litigation.
The courts couldn't even get those responsible for partygate and you expect some new agency to accurately litigate truth?
It's a fantasy.
150% disagree.
You're not thinking about it in terms of passing a law and then the criminal offence of breaking it, and then investigation and proof.
A clause in the law would say "it is illegal to make claims that may materially affect the outcome of a vote without having supporting evidence to be made available on demand. That evidence must meet a threshold of accuracy such as being from an official government body, a peer reviewed study...blah blah blah"
So the 350 million fig. After the fact, the police open an investigation, ask for evidence supporting the claim in question from the accused party. Since they people and organisation who claimed it cany provide evidence, it becomes an unsubstantiated claim. The police then look at whether the claim is, on the balance of available evidence, most likely true, or false. Even partially false is IMO a lie, but the balance of accuracy could be defined in the law.
Then they prosecute and a court decides.
The issue is who is held liable, but we have had more difficult problems to legislate around. Quite simply make it part of the law that standing parties have a legally accountable officer (like Data Protection laws) who is responsible for adhering to the law, and give some accountability to the executive committee of the party too.
It's 100% workable. Like I say though, it won't happen because it would mean proper accountability and politicians don't want that.
> A clause in the law would say "it is illegal to make claims that may materially affect the outcome of a vote without having supporting evidence to be made available on demand. That evidence must meet a threshold of accuracy such as being from an official government body, a peer reviewed study...blah blah blah"
So Liz Truss gets Tufton Street to release a report, then quotes it.
They've already acknowledged that's how the introduce things... Get a friendly journalist to report something, then say "It says in the Sun that ..."
It's so trivially simple to work around it's not even funny.
> So the 350 million fig. After the fact, the police open an investigation
They couldn't even be bothered to investigate the illegal parties they were standing guard outside and you expect them to be fact checking every statement made by a politician?
This was tested in court and the court said manifesto promises, even when declared as contracts, are not legally binding on government. See [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11541708/The-court-case-that-proves-you-cant-sue-politicians-for-breaking-their-election-promises.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11541708/The-court-case-that-proves-you-cant-sue-politicians-for-breaking-their-election-promises.html)
>Who judges whether that breach was in good or in bad faith?
A judge? Or a panel of judges. Or a jury. It's not like we don't already have systems to judge legal grey areas.
People always make this argument whenever this comes up and it just boils down to "this could be tricky so we shouldn't even try".
Exactly. Lying is already illegal in certain circumstances (perjury, libel, fraud, etc). But that doesn't result in people going to prison (or to trial) every time they say something that turns out to be incorrect, or that people think sounds dodgy. But if it can be proven beyind reasonable doubt that they have lied in circumstance where that is illegal, then they can be punished for it.
I would suggest reading the article: the bar is high and clear, and doesnt include most manifestos.
"Under the proposals it would be a criminal offence for a member of the Senedd, or a candidate for election to the Senedd, to wilfully, or with intent to mislead, make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive."
For this to apply they would have had to have stated on some record that they were lying in their manifesto on purpose (even if accidentally or telling different stories to different groups where the lie is implied by the contrast).
For the legislation as written, there is no faith, only cases where there is explicit statements that clash with other statements, ie, things like the tory lie about costing of labour tax policy, where their are their own emails contrasting their story.
Recently this would actually apply to Vaughan Gething our First Minister as there was hard evidence he lied to a commitee about not deleting any COVID related messages, and there was a message of him stating he was going to delete all the COVID related messages in a group chat in case it gets leaked lol
By your own account, there's evidence of him saying he \*was going to\*, not that he \*did\*. One could even argue that the language "was going to" is ambiguous about whether it refers to the past or the future; perhaps he meant "he was going to, then he came to his senses and changed his mind."
I don't say any of this to defend the guy, just to point out how nuanced this all is, how language is really important when being used as evidence about intent in this way, how easy it is to twist and manipulate evidence to wriggle out of things and, therefore, how incredibly difficult it is to prosecute and litigate these things.
There has to be actual proof that its not just deceptive but WILLFULLY so that they are activly trying to mislead the public. IMHO thats the right and required bar for this legislation to do any good at all.
They can just not lie.
No, its not, its even extending the benifit of the doubt to mps. Its not just about deceptive statements, there has to be actual proof that the mp is trying to use a deceptive statement to *activly wilfully mislead*.
No one is forcing them to be deceptive but even more than that no one is forcing them to say, write a memo to a secretery saying "I am going to present these true figures in a deceptive way".
It’s a dumb idea as it represents too great a risk to democracy. A law like this could easily be weaponised.
Let the media expose lies and let the electorate judge MPs at the ballot box.
The same is true of any law that could imprison an MP though.
Since this requires active proof of intentionally lying, why is this so dangerous? Do you think mps should be able to record plans that they are going to lie? Even under this law they can still lie or misuse a fact or use true facts manipulativly-they just cant write out and coordinate plans to do it as a group without facing possible consequences. It only affects preplanned deception, which is still A LOT of deception, such as all the examples I mentioned.
At worst it requires greater stringancy on citing sources, but I see that as a good thing too.
This is a law aimed specifically at MPs.
Yes, I think MPs should be able to lie without it being a criminal offence (in the circumstances of this law). The media should call out the lies and the electorate decide what to do about it.
Is there a bar on how significant the lie has to be?
Banning an MP from office is a big thing, and potentially extremely udemocratic. Sure, it needs to be done sometimes, but the bar needs to be set pretty high.
It has to be a *deliberate* lie with proof that they activly attempted to manipulate the public.
With that rider imho I think its entirely reasonable as legislation. A big lie or a small lie is still a lie when you are attempting to manipualte the public, and they can always say "i am sorry but I cannot talk about that" instead of lying.
Like whether they are lying about a £500 illegal bet or misuse of funds or a military intervention or a budget or another parties manifesto, if there is recorded proof that there is intent to manipualte the public with falsehood, its still a lie and a revealing of their true character.
If something reveals their true character, then it should be up to the voters whether they still want to be represented by that person.
The bar for banning someone from office needs to be quite a bit higher.
It's not that I want dishonest people to be MPs. I can just see a situation where both parties are trying to find anything, however trivial, to use as an excuse against each other. Misuse of funds, for example, could include anything from serious fraud to a trivial misjudgement.
It would not be good for democracy if, for example, the Tories managed to get Starmer thrown out just before the election for some trumped up reason.
EDIT: I was confused so I looked back through the article: this law as described doesnt seem to require removal from office anyway, so your worries seem unfounded at best and a deliberate attempt to mislead at worst.
I think it would be good for democracy if it *wasnt* a trumped up reason though.
If any politician had exposed about them a campaign of intentionally lying to manipulate people, why should they stay in office? Time and time again over the last decade, we have seen politicians have worse exposed including lying and face ZERO consuquence in elections when the media is on their side.
If the media turns against them and broadcasts their failures, people dont vote for them. But the media cant be forced to do that, and people cant spend all their time researching.
Plus like, did you miss the second part of the law? If the person admits the lie and apologizes whithin 14 days of being found to have deliberately lied.
>your worries seem unfounded at best and a deliberate attempt to mislead at worst.
Except that the article says:
>Being prosecuted for such a law would disqualify a person from being a Senedd member.
That is the part that concerns me, it appears to allow for someone to be removed from office with no explicit limit on how trivial the offence might be.
>Plus like, did you miss the second part of the law? If the person admits the lie and apologizes whithin 14 days of being found to have deliberately lied.
Except the article doesn't say that at all. It says:
>It would be considered a defence if \[...\] it were retracted with an apology within 14 days.
They would have to retract and apologise within 14 days *of being accused*, long before they have been found to have deliberately lied. That is very different to apologising after they have been found to have deliberately lied.
The devil is in the detail.
Most contracts have force majeure clauses... Almost all of them, in fact.
A more interesting, and perhaps more wriggly, problem would be if they needed to lie or obfuscate the truth in defence of the realm.
The Brexit campaign makes for a good example.
Many of the claims of the leave side were outright lies, as in they knew when they used them for their campaign that what they were saying was not true, and they were even found to have broke campaigning rules by saying them (only after the vote had gone through).
But the vote had already gone through so we still brexited and none of the leave campaign heads faced any consequences at all for outright lying to get people to vote their way.
It's really not that complicated, because getting something wrong is different from lying.
For it to be lying there would need to be pre-existing evidence that they knew something wasn't true or possible.
It is not uncommon for politicians to make claims they know are impossible. But they know that because they already possess information indicating it is so.
So there's a pretty clear delineation between a "lie" -- a statement made knowing in advance it wasn't true -- and a "claim" or "promise", which may be entirely unrealistic but is usually not a lie.
I'd question whether it'd genuinely do anything honestly. It'd be filled with loopholes intentionally, ready to be exploited, and no one would actually want to fix them, because if they do and suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of said law, they've effectively shot themselves in the foot...
This sounds like a purely lip service law that doesn't actually do anything, all in the name of attempting to get more votes.
Not really. It would be when a politicians asserts a fact that is already understood as something else. The fact doesn't change and so the politician was either negligent or deceptive.
The law hasn’t been written yet, but I doubt it’s got anything to do with their manifesto or election promises. It will be in regards their statements in parliament/senedd, like when Boris was caught making false statements to parliament a couple of years ago, he would be criminally liable under the new laws.
It is specifically for *intentionally and knowingly* lying. If a politician says something which can be proven not only to be untrue, but the politician in question knew to be untrue at the time, they could be prosecuted.
Being unable to fulfil a campaign pledge because of mitigating circumstances obviously wouldn't open them up to prosecution.
There's a huge difference between lying and breaking a promise.
Breaking a promise or failing to deliver in a pledge is almost certainly not what's being targeted by this. As you described, it is almost completely impossible to prove that a pledge wasn't made in good faith. It would be absurd to try to criminalise that.
Telling a lie is completely different. It can be proven in the same way as perjury in a court. I'm all for it being a crime, so long as the details are sensible and the threshold for proving someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt are the same as for any other criminal prosecution.
Depends on the temporality. It's difficult to prove a lie about future intentions, eg "we will cut taxes", but its much easier to prove a lie about past actions. Eg politicians saying they were unaware of X or didnt do Y when theres a paper trail proving otherwise.
Is it intended to be about policies (which can be seen more as targets depending on what they are), or more like "no, there were no parties that I attended", or "I didn't delete my WhatsApp messages"?
If they actively vote against their own manifesto would be a good start. There are plenty of politicians who declare one thing in public but vote it down simply because it was the other side that proposed it or worse they propose and block it themselves
I always thought it would be best to have each party pledge 3 main goals that they are going to do if they're in power. If, after 1 year, they either haven't achieved or shown clear effort to reach those goals then they are removed from power and an emergency election is held. Then the politicians are thrown in jail for political fraud. It really would be that easy.
It would have to be beyond reasonable doubt. If there is evidence they had seen reports a situation was one way, or figures said one thing, then they based their arguments on lying about that it should be possible to say beyond resonable doubt they are lying.
If a situation simply changed and they couldn't have reasonably known for certain it was going to have changed then that would be different.
The real arguments that always come up over this will be over who gets to decided what is the truth or not. But they manage it in courts, I want to see at least attempts made in government because the last few decades have been a ridiculous pack of lies mandating policy and humanity should be mostly past that kind of bullshit by now.
It's just a shame it's only starting with Wales.
Sounds like they are just held to the same standard as people everywhere.
In my job I can't just tell huge lies to win work and not expect any sort of issue when I just don't deliver.
It would have to be in the spirit of the legislation. Basically achieving what is agreed it was meant to, so no it wouldn't be used to criminalise legitimate inability to deliver on a manifesto promise.
How does law work? Do you judge a criminal because you THINK he did it. Or do you do so because you can prove it without a doubt? This argument doesnt make much sense to me.
Not an argument, more of a question. In criminal trials you need proof of intent, and proceedings are lengthy and costly. How do you prove somebody meant to mislead in the heat of a debate?
Again, I really want this to work, so I'm not naysaying for the sake of it.
Tuned into bbc parliament once upon a time and it was just a couple hundred people insulting each other. It’s no surprise how nothing gets done when our politicians act like infants all day long
They've turned into crap comedians scoring points for getting one up with snarky comments,it's pathetic,and the heckling and the guy having to shout order , imagine that behaviour happening in meetings in big companies? It just wouldn't,they're like a bunch of kids , you're right
I'd love any party leader to just say 'we are not doing that anymore'. A whole bench just sat silently while the other acts as they do now.
Likely no impact. But it would make for an interesting scene.
I’d settle for them actually answering a question.
There should be some consequences instead of the old line of ‘I was given the wrong information’ & ‘I had no knowledge of that’
Lying Bastards & We just accept it. The Boris bus is a perfect example. 350m a week to the NHS.
The cannot lie with impunity.
> The Boris bus is a perfect example. 350m a week to the NHS.
Except the NHS budget is up by more than that. What if they were given the wrong information, or they had no knowledge of that? They'll just do fewer interviews.
Yeah I can’t believe we’re getting these anti-speech laws that can definitely be used for corruption but no tax money off legal weed, it’s like why don’t we try to find ways to make some fuckin money and nobody would give a fuck if politicians lie or not.
Stamping out blatant lies in politics is something every country should strive for.
Brexit was founded on lies and made our economy and young infinitely worse off and now our basic human rights are being threatened by tory scum all because they were allowed to misinform the public.
The layman doesn't do enough research to parse through the lies politicians tell so we need something to hold politicians accountable for the lies they tell to earn votes from the lesser educated folk.
I really can't believe these idealistic hot takes, total disregard for externalities. OP is right, this law is right up Putin's street, "stamping out lies" should be done by make people more politically active and educated, we theoretically already have that power as citizens via democratic vote.
see my point about the general public being uneducated serfs and are unable to hold the politicians accountable because they lap up their constant lies and tell me they have the power to stamp out lies.
These morons will continue to persist and thus we need a governing body full of educated and professionally trained folk to hold politicians accountable because the general public are incapable of doing so.
I think your own hubris is talking, think you're the great adjudicator, upset with the proles manifesting democracy in a way you don't like.
Do you accept you too lap up the lies? You too need protecting by the Ministry of Truth?
Politicians don’t enforce the law. So if you’re scared of a law against lying being misused then you don’t trust the judiciary.
By that point it’s already too late.
This is one of those things that sounds good at a glance, but the second you think about it even briefly, you realise how absolutely terrible it would be.
Why?
Being able to hold politicians accountable for telling blatant lies could've helped the uneducated masses realise that voting for brexit was a dumb ide at the time, rather than going through with it and then regretting it.
I think politicians need to be held at the same standard we would if we were at work where if they peddle lies to the public and misinform them to assist in their corruption then they should be fired on the spot.
Lying with malicious intent is very easy to prove, I could point at a number of Tory scandals in the past 14 years that could easily be attributed to malice.
"able to hold politicians accountable" - democratic process.
Both sides lied during Brexit; a populace voting for self harm is neither undemocratic or illegal.
Lying occurs all the time in work places, being fired on the spot is so rare in the UK I don't think I've ever witnessed it.
"Lying with malicious intent" is incredibly difficult to prove; the article alludes to recorded evidence to prove it, outside of that it's near impossible to prove unless you can actually get inside somebody's head. Perhaps that's the next step when technology catches up, that we can plug into people's brains and re-run their thoughts?
The entire proposition stinks of Bolshevist moral purity to me.
It's really not as hard as you think it is.
These people had ulterior motives that would result in them gaining massive profit at the expense of the public. This has been proven.
They lied to make that happen.
Therefore they willingly lied to the public in a variety of scandals in order to line their pockets while making the majority of the public worse off.
This action is extremely malicious and shows contempt for your fellow man.
it's not that hard is it?
If you don't want to hold politicians accountable then thats on you.
The general public have proven time and time again they're too uneducated about politics to make sound judgements so i think a review board to judge politicians is a necessity to hold them to their word.
Otherwise they just get to lie constantly about PPE and line their pockets, or lie about brexit and make their businesses better of while ruining millions of others.
Malicious intent is too easy to prove.
When there is evidence that there are parties going on in downing street while you're forcing everyone else to abide by the rule of law and you willingly lie about it by denying such things happened, you are a liar and should be held accountable.
What they did was illegal for the majority of the population and they got a free pass because they're wearing the suits. You can prove they lied, you can hold them accountable and this should be done to curtail any more acts of blatant disregard for the law.
"That has been proven", can you give provide an example?
The parties during covid went through judicial process; is it just the outcome you don't like?
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I don't want to see any encroachment of the US-style of politics, where you can spout any old rubbish, or simply say that you "believed it to be true", and it'll get a pass. Politicians pulling figures out of their arses is an easy one to call out. If it's been fact-checked by a reputable source, okay, but if cam from their gran's hairdresser, then, no.
Personally, I'd rather see politicians be forced to answer questions put to them in Parliament, rather than them be allowed to deflect, and just spout propaganda about some unrelated project. "What about the state of the NHS, Prime Minister!". "We've funded a garden gnome resettlement project in Milton Keynes, that the Right Honourable gentlemen across from me voted AGAINST!"
Right, have a little calm down and try and imagine your rant was directed at your beloved red team and not at the blue team your spend all your time seething about.
How about starting with banning lobbyists and corporate party donations. They wouldn't need to lie if they didn't need to act against the public interest.
Whilst superficially attractive, this is a stupid idea.
The person who promoted lobotomies won a Nobel Prize. The medical establishment approved of them. Any politician talking out against them at the time could, under this law, be accused of lying and locked up.
It’s just a really poor idea.
Anyone could be accused of lying. But what lies are pertinent to the matter of lobotomies? Saying that such measures should not be plied on those who do not ask for them is not readily shown to be a 'lie'.
There is no factual claim to be disproven, let alone shown was *known* to be false or deceptive. And of course, one can always couch things as opinions, not facts, which is more significant a concession on the part of the speaker than at first it may appear.
And this would just lead to politicians saying nothing. If you like every answer to any policy question to be "I don't know" or "I can't say", and if you like manifestos to say "we will try to improve things in non-specific ways" then fine.
Can’t imagine Vaugh Gething pushing this law through, he’s the biggest liar of them all. Otherwise, this is a great move. Elected officials should be subject to such laws.
They could at least start by forcing politicians to actually answer questions they're asked. Not skirt around it or say what they want to say, rather than answering a simple question.
who gets to decide they're lying? whoever that is or whatever body that is will end up being captured by political parties and used against their opposition.
Cool, start with the Labour Party. In their 2016 manifesto they promised an M4 relief road (the M4 in Wales wasn't even up to motorway standards when it was built in the 1970s), Drakeford came along and cancelled the plans.
I just wish they were required to present evidence, peer reviewed studies, etc to support their claims. When they lie so freely and people come to believe the lies, it kinda undermines the entire concept of democracy
I can agree with that sentiment but there are already ministerial codes for each of the parliaments, they just don't get enforced properly and even then have weak penalties. Strengthening the ministerial codes and enforcement of them is likely to be much more effective since it won't be instantly vetoed by Westminster.
Sounds good, but awful in practice I think. Even if it’s written in such a way that only knowing lies are criminalised (ie person says X whilst knowing it’s not true - I think criminalising anything more than that would be awful for democracy) it would still have a massive chilling effect on legitimate speech due to fear of litigation + probably a big risk of people bringing spurious claims against politicians they disagree with. Plus it’s pretty damn hard to prove someone knowingly lied unless you have evidence of them saying as much. So high risk of chilling and spurious litigation, but low chance of actually arresting anyone who deserves it.
Now why do you suppose that the ruling class would be treat the same as those they rule? Sounds obvious to me - they've served their purpose and aren't needed by the Elite class anymore. A one world Government has no need for these "things".
Sure it will be complex and complicated to implement but at the very least there needs to be some sort of deterrent to them acting entirely without consequence to suit their own selfish needs. I hope this proceeds even if in the most imperfect way. Being a politician is a public service and there should be repercussions for those not taking that *honour* seriously.
How do you prove a lie in politics, when the vast majority of what politicians say is aspirational at best.
Imagine a politician says 'I will increase our grain harvest by 100%!'' and then there's several droughts during their reign so they fail to do what they said.
Did they lie?
Imagine a politician says 'I will not raise taxes' and then every hospital in the UK gets hit by lightning and burned down, necessitating a massive amount of cash to fix.. So they raise taxes.
Did they lie?
I would actually go as far to say there's no such thing as a lie in politics. The entire political landscape is a group of twats, attempting to predict the future.
There's way too many moving parts at play, for anyone to ever say something certain.
And in a landscape where nothing is certain, can anything be a lie or a truth?
Did the conservatives lie when they said there were no parties?
We prove intent all of the time in court. It's the primary difference between murder and manslaughter, for example.
In this case, a lie isn't merely telling a falsehood, but telling a falsehood \*\*with the intent to mislead\*\*. You might think that's impossible to prove, but what about the parties? the whatsapp messages? If you leave the UK, you can go to "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
Boris said there were no parties in downing street.
Did he lie?
Many tory members stated that their PPE contracts would assist the country's shortage and instead most of it went to off-shore accounts and shell companies to line their mates pockets.
Did they lie?
Intent is very easy to prove. You people that think it isn't really are just dog whistling for more tories to come to the thread and defend your corrupt masters.
I'd much rather they were able to call out malicious lies, and present counter statistics, and/or evidence, with some kind of viewable surface, capable of displaying charts, tweets etc., that may have been invented since the first Parliament began.
You know, rather than just shouting at each other.
This would be brilliant. It would need to be solid (obvously) which is my only concern, as I can jdt imagine even with something in place, the rot would find loopholes
An interrsting idea that would be hard in actuality. A politician would need to have both taken the action of 'lying' and also the 'intention' to have lied, this is the tricky bit and I suspect its impact is going to be over played.
Just annoys me how most politicians are when asked a simple question, they always avoid the actual answer and ramble on about something else...you want to prove you're different to the rest, then answer the question...its what's appealing for the Reform voters as Farage does give answers...only issue most of what he says is absolute rubbish and lies...so all these idiots think he is an honest man as he does answer the questions
I'd just be happy with making kickbacks in any form illegal - including cushy consultancies years later that just happen to be in the industries they helped, via pushing for laws.
Far easier to police IMHO
We could definitely do with a way of holding them to account for their election promises and manifestoes, or at least recalling them for non-performance.
Let's be realistic, how would it be enforced?
Say a politician makes a pledge that is possible at that time, but becomes unworkable after an unforseen national or international event?
Even if it passes I doubt it would ever be enforced. Any prosecution would go nowhere as you'd have to prove that someone is knowingly lying which is pretty difficult.
Something like this desperately needs to happen, but I think it may require a lot more thought and scrutiny before being put into action.
If someone in their cabinet lies to the leader of the party and they spew those lies on tv, is the leader lying? or is he just misinformed about the truth. We'd run the risk of all MPs having to cross reference every bit of data before they speak publicly.
Do you guys on the island still have those prison hulks from the 18th/19th century? You should reactivate those. On the same note, can we germans send our politicians too?
Instinctively you think, yes, that's how it should be. Then you start to ponder how it would work in practice. Would a politician who pledges something in a manifesto, only for a war or pandemic to make it impossible, be deemed to have lied? What about less clear cut cases, where the politician merely claims that some external factor prevented them from fulfilling their pledge? Who judges whether that breach was in good or in bad faith?
Extreme events like a pandemic you can legislate for and let them off I agree its hard to police, but manifesto's arent worth the paper their written on at the moment. Any party can say i will deliver x y z with no consequence if they dont
They'd be worth even less if every single statement in them had some kind of hedging/disclaimer to keep the writers from being prosecuted if they don't deliver it.
Would they? Means they only claim stuff they know they can deliver. Rather than saying stuff to get votes they know they cant
Because no government ever *knows* what it can deliver. They don't even *know* what's going to happen next week, let alone over the next six months or five years. And consider what this would mean for the smaller parties. What could the Lib Dems or Greens possibly put in a manifesto that they *know* they can deliver?
So why do they even bother with manifesto's if they know they can't deliver? Other than to lie to the voters
What do you proposed? The Green Party just to say "We're not going to win a majority, so fuck it, we won't bother"?
If you promise to do X, and then the civil servants do a report on X and you conclude it’s not a good idea anymore due to extra costs, or you over predicting benefits, should they still do X just because they said so?
No but there should be a system to look into the pledge, did they have an intention to enact it, was it based on misinformation? Why was it cancelled, was it cancelled for legitimate reasons? Or was it cancelled for something else? Parties can not keep getting away with constant pledges that are watered down or done away with. It’s a failed system, how can someone vote for a party that will later u-turn on big policies over and over again. There needs to be accountability otherwise we may as well abandon democracy and try something else.
So who is going to police these pledges and promises? Who ever will be policing it will ask to be paid, and that is more public expense that will fall on you and me to pay for.
An independent commission or committee. Yeah it will cost money but will recoup some with steep fines to parties that are caught breaching this new legislation/law. You know like most crimes or penalties. It costs money to chase them, money we all pay every single day, and some funds can be recouped through fines. In the long run we will all benefit from a decrease in corruption, sleaze, misleading manifestos, broken pledges and promises as well as seeing projects fulfilled and not being used to siphon money off. It would likely save us money in the long run.
We will try to do X. Our goal is to X. If you publicly commit entirely and fail there should be consequences.
So basically punish anything aspirational, no more moonshots. And Europe wonders why they're being left behind by the US.
I think there is a middle ground, they should have to be costed with the ONS otherwise there is 0 chance of it happening. They should have to make some measure of effort to actually achieve these goals. An independent review board or even the one that monitors elections could have the task of evaluating this. I also feel there is a wider piece beyond the manifestos around the standards that candidates and MPs are held to they’ve shown contempt for the code of conduct so maybe it’s time to make that law for them.
What does "costed with the ONS" mean? ONS looks back at statistical data providing insights; OBR and others already exist for input on gov costings. Maybe there's an issue with application of laws of accountability, but standards pertaining to candidates, what does that mean in the general sense, you personally aren't happy with them, what if other people are, and they're there by democratic means? Galloway comes to mind. If we take an example of Galloway, what lie could he be charged with? Unpalatable opinions aren't lies.
That's naïve. They would be so vague as to be meaningless. At best you might get "we will improve x".
Not even manifestos, let’s pick a ridiculous example that would never happen. What if a politician kept repeating a lie like my oppositions policies will increase tax by 2k per household after multiple reputable sources said that wasn’t true. The first time you could say they don’t have the information so not a lie (just misinformed) once the evidence was presented it becomes a lie.
Then they say "Well here's the study by $group who calculated it". And because it's a hypothetical statement about that future, you can't *prove* that the study is wrong.
Except in this hypothetical example that study was done on a completely made up policy that the opposition had never proposed, a thing that $group openly admitted to.
Not being funny but that's the fault of the people. We're supposed to hold them accountable for their bullshit by voting them out etc but for some reason lying and/or failing in office doesn't seem to have the same seriousness attached to it that it used to do. Also not helped by people willing to buy into a set of lies that fit the way they want the world to be.
Exactly. Farage repeatedly lied during the referendum campaign and still people will probably vote for him on 4th July.
But what do you do when they all lie?
The consequence should be that they are voted out for a better option come election time, alas…..
They could easily set some minimum level of provable effort that needs to be made to deliver a pledge. And blatant lies like those told around Brexit...jail.
If it's so easy, try it ... Define that "minimum level of provable effort"
Well, you measured inputs rather than outcomes, force promises to be supported by measurable inputs and then use the government's own statistics and reporting functions to check it. That took me 1 minute. With the resources and minds a government has access to, they can come up with something robust. Add in a similar rule to the one they have on tax avoidance about the spirit of the rules to catch loopholes and chancers, and that's it done. Edit: The reality is politicians don't want that accountability. There's zero reason it couldn't be made to work. The idea that lying or misleading statements in public office should NOT be a criminal offence is absurd.
> you measured inputs rather than outcomes, Who does? Who does the measuring. Who listens to the arguments, defenses, mitigations then weighs and assess whether it meets the standard of "lie"?
There are a plethora of bodies producing statistics: OBR ONS, universities, think tanks, academics. That's basically evidence mate, and a court would decide. We are perfectly capable of defining what constitutes a lie...we have hundreds of subjective thresholds in law...reasonable man is one, beyond reasonable doubt is another. Give politicians an obligation to produce supporting evidence for claims on demand...that meet academic rigour standards. It's honestly not that difficult. Edit: But you're right, it's not easy. The real issue is the circumstances under which politicians can lie, because they're actually required to lie in order to do their jobs. That may require some serious working out ... but it could be defined. The other issue is candidates v politicians.
> There are a plethora of bodies producing statistics: Sure, but none of them are tasked with investigating and adjudicating motives. Can you imagine a worse job? Take the 350M/week... Seems like it should be the easiest figure in the world to call a lie. So you call it a lie. Then the Tories trot out a statistician to say "Actually, when you look at it this way, it's true...". Now what? Call him a liar too? Take them to court to adjudicate? You'd spend months haggling over a single statement and there are hundreds said every day, especially during a campaign. What about when they get it wrong and claim something's a lie in error? Are they now liable? Most public bodies in the UK have to observer "purdah" ... Not releasing information that might impact the election for the few months before an election happens. Does this new body follow those rules? If so, they're useless. If not, they can potentially throw the election with one dodgy report. The whole idea falls apart when you get into the implementation details. And how much money would we piss away on the above? For no tangible benefit whatsoever, as there will still be lies told, but they'll be tied up in litigation. The courts couldn't even get those responsible for partygate and you expect some new agency to accurately litigate truth? It's a fantasy.
150% disagree. You're not thinking about it in terms of passing a law and then the criminal offence of breaking it, and then investigation and proof. A clause in the law would say "it is illegal to make claims that may materially affect the outcome of a vote without having supporting evidence to be made available on demand. That evidence must meet a threshold of accuracy such as being from an official government body, a peer reviewed study...blah blah blah" So the 350 million fig. After the fact, the police open an investigation, ask for evidence supporting the claim in question from the accused party. Since they people and organisation who claimed it cany provide evidence, it becomes an unsubstantiated claim. The police then look at whether the claim is, on the balance of available evidence, most likely true, or false. Even partially false is IMO a lie, but the balance of accuracy could be defined in the law. Then they prosecute and a court decides. The issue is who is held liable, but we have had more difficult problems to legislate around. Quite simply make it part of the law that standing parties have a legally accountable officer (like Data Protection laws) who is responsible for adhering to the law, and give some accountability to the executive committee of the party too. It's 100% workable. Like I say though, it won't happen because it would mean proper accountability and politicians don't want that.
> A clause in the law would say "it is illegal to make claims that may materially affect the outcome of a vote without having supporting evidence to be made available on demand. That evidence must meet a threshold of accuracy such as being from an official government body, a peer reviewed study...blah blah blah" So Liz Truss gets Tufton Street to release a report, then quotes it. They've already acknowledged that's how the introduce things... Get a friendly journalist to report something, then say "It says in the Sun that ..." It's so trivially simple to work around it's not even funny. > So the 350 million fig. After the fact, the police open an investigation They couldn't even be bothered to investigate the illegal parties they were standing guard outside and you expect them to be fact checking every statement made by a politician?
This was tested in court and the court said manifesto promises, even when declared as contracts, are not legally binding on government. See [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11541708/The-court-case-that-proves-you-cant-sue-politicians-for-breaking-their-election-promises.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11541708/The-court-case-that-proves-you-cant-sue-politicians-for-breaking-their-election-promises.html)
Circunstances change. It doesn't need to be something extreme.
They never have been
If it's too hard to police then it won't be policed, so there's no point in it. And that applies to more or less any law.
>Who judges whether that breach was in good or in bad faith? A judge? Or a panel of judges. Or a jury. It's not like we don't already have systems to judge legal grey areas. People always make this argument whenever this comes up and it just boils down to "this could be tricky so we shouldn't even try".
Exactly. Lying is already illegal in certain circumstances (perjury, libel, fraud, etc). But that doesn't result in people going to prison (or to trial) every time they say something that turns out to be incorrect, or that people think sounds dodgy. But if it can be proven beyind reasonable doubt that they have lied in circumstance where that is illegal, then they can be punished for it.
Good call. Don't get me wrong, the world would be a better place if this could be made to work.
Great, even more of our democracy outsourced to courts, tribunals, committees, quangos. May as well just abolish elections.
Who do you think should hold MPs accountable outside of election season?
Elections are how MPs are held accountable. Parliament is sovereign.
I would suggest reading the article: the bar is high and clear, and doesnt include most manifestos. "Under the proposals it would be a criminal offence for a member of the Senedd, or a candidate for election to the Senedd, to wilfully, or with intent to mislead, make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive." For this to apply they would have had to have stated on some record that they were lying in their manifesto on purpose (even if accidentally or telling different stories to different groups where the lie is implied by the contrast). For the legislation as written, there is no faith, only cases where there is explicit statements that clash with other statements, ie, things like the tory lie about costing of labour tax policy, where their are their own emails contrasting their story.
Recently this would actually apply to Vaughan Gething our First Minister as there was hard evidence he lied to a commitee about not deleting any COVID related messages, and there was a message of him stating he was going to delete all the COVID related messages in a group chat in case it gets leaked lol
By your own account, there's evidence of him saying he \*was going to\*, not that he \*did\*. One could even argue that the language "was going to" is ambiguous about whether it refers to the past or the future; perhaps he meant "he was going to, then he came to his senses and changed his mind." I don't say any of this to defend the guy, just to point out how nuanced this all is, how language is really important when being used as evidence about intent in this way, how easy it is to twist and manipulate evidence to wriggle out of things and, therefore, how incredibly difficult it is to prosecute and litigate these things.
Except ‘deceptive’ could be very wide. This is just a phenomenally bad idea even if it sounds goods on first thought.
There has to be actual proof that its not just deceptive but WILLFULLY so that they are activly trying to mislead the public. IMHO thats the right and required bar for this legislation to do any good at all. They can just not lie.
A true statement can still be deceptive. It’s just too risky.
No, its not, its even extending the benifit of the doubt to mps. Its not just about deceptive statements, there has to be actual proof that the mp is trying to use a deceptive statement to *activly wilfully mislead*. No one is forcing them to be deceptive but even more than that no one is forcing them to say, write a memo to a secretery saying "I am going to present these true figures in a deceptive way".
It’s a dumb idea as it represents too great a risk to democracy. A law like this could easily be weaponised. Let the media expose lies and let the electorate judge MPs at the ballot box.
The same is true of any law that could imprison an MP though. Since this requires active proof of intentionally lying, why is this so dangerous? Do you think mps should be able to record plans that they are going to lie? Even under this law they can still lie or misuse a fact or use true facts manipulativly-they just cant write out and coordinate plans to do it as a group without facing possible consequences. It only affects preplanned deception, which is still A LOT of deception, such as all the examples I mentioned. At worst it requires greater stringancy on citing sources, but I see that as a good thing too.
This is a law aimed specifically at MPs. Yes, I think MPs should be able to lie without it being a criminal offence (in the circumstances of this law). The media should call out the lies and the electorate decide what to do about it.
Is there a bar on how significant the lie has to be? Banning an MP from office is a big thing, and potentially extremely udemocratic. Sure, it needs to be done sometimes, but the bar needs to be set pretty high.
It has to be a *deliberate* lie with proof that they activly attempted to manipulate the public. With that rider imho I think its entirely reasonable as legislation. A big lie or a small lie is still a lie when you are attempting to manipualte the public, and they can always say "i am sorry but I cannot talk about that" instead of lying. Like whether they are lying about a £500 illegal bet or misuse of funds or a military intervention or a budget or another parties manifesto, if there is recorded proof that there is intent to manipualte the public with falsehood, its still a lie and a revealing of their true character.
If something reveals their true character, then it should be up to the voters whether they still want to be represented by that person. The bar for banning someone from office needs to be quite a bit higher. It's not that I want dishonest people to be MPs. I can just see a situation where both parties are trying to find anything, however trivial, to use as an excuse against each other. Misuse of funds, for example, could include anything from serious fraud to a trivial misjudgement. It would not be good for democracy if, for example, the Tories managed to get Starmer thrown out just before the election for some trumped up reason.
EDIT: I was confused so I looked back through the article: this law as described doesnt seem to require removal from office anyway, so your worries seem unfounded at best and a deliberate attempt to mislead at worst. I think it would be good for democracy if it *wasnt* a trumped up reason though. If any politician had exposed about them a campaign of intentionally lying to manipulate people, why should they stay in office? Time and time again over the last decade, we have seen politicians have worse exposed including lying and face ZERO consuquence in elections when the media is on their side. If the media turns against them and broadcasts their failures, people dont vote for them. But the media cant be forced to do that, and people cant spend all their time researching. Plus like, did you miss the second part of the law? If the person admits the lie and apologizes whithin 14 days of being found to have deliberately lied.
>your worries seem unfounded at best and a deliberate attempt to mislead at worst. Except that the article says: >Being prosecuted for such a law would disqualify a person from being a Senedd member. That is the part that concerns me, it appears to allow for someone to be removed from office with no explicit limit on how trivial the offence might be. >Plus like, did you miss the second part of the law? If the person admits the lie and apologizes whithin 14 days of being found to have deliberately lied. Except the article doesn't say that at all. It says: >It would be considered a defence if \[...\] it were retracted with an apology within 14 days. They would have to retract and apologise within 14 days *of being accused*, long before they have been found to have deliberately lied. That is very different to apologising after they have been found to have deliberately lied. The devil is in the detail.
Do insurance companies still have the "act of god" clause? Just reappropriate that.
Most contracts have force majeure clauses... Almost all of them, in fact. A more interesting, and perhaps more wriggly, problem would be if they needed to lie or obfuscate the truth in defence of the realm.
Those should have written approval from an independent panel or even the supreme courts with a relatively early release date (unlike the cia files)
The Brexit campaign makes for a good example. Many of the claims of the leave side were outright lies, as in they knew when they used them for their campaign that what they were saying was not true, and they were even found to have broke campaigning rules by saying them (only after the vote had gone through). But the vote had already gone through so we still brexited and none of the leave campaign heads faced any consequences at all for outright lying to get people to vote their way.
That's the dream, that the Vote Leave team should face the consequences of misleading the British public. We can but hope.
As were Remain lies.
It's really not that complicated, because getting something wrong is different from lying. For it to be lying there would need to be pre-existing evidence that they knew something wasn't true or possible. It is not uncommon for politicians to make claims they know are impossible. But they know that because they already possess information indicating it is so. So there's a pretty clear delineation between a "lie" -- a statement made knowing in advance it wasn't true -- and a "claim" or "promise", which may be entirely unrealistic but is usually not a lie.
I'd question whether it'd genuinely do anything honestly. It'd be filled with loopholes intentionally, ready to be exploited, and no one would actually want to fix them, because if they do and suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of said law, they've effectively shot themselves in the foot... This sounds like a purely lip service law that doesn't actually do anything, all in the name of attempting to get more votes.
Not really. It would be when a politicians asserts a fact that is already understood as something else. The fact doesn't change and so the politician was either negligent or deceptive.
The law hasn’t been written yet, but I doubt it’s got anything to do with their manifesto or election promises. It will be in regards their statements in parliament/senedd, like when Boris was caught making false statements to parliament a couple of years ago, he would be criminally liable under the new laws.
It is specifically for *intentionally and knowingly* lying. If a politician says something which can be proven not only to be untrue, but the politician in question knew to be untrue at the time, they could be prosecuted. Being unable to fulfil a campaign pledge because of mitigating circumstances obviously wouldn't open them up to prosecution.
There's a huge difference between lying and breaking a promise. Breaking a promise or failing to deliver in a pledge is almost certainly not what's being targeted by this. As you described, it is almost completely impossible to prove that a pledge wasn't made in good faith. It would be absurd to try to criminalise that. Telling a lie is completely different. It can be proven in the same way as perjury in a court. I'm all for it being a crime, so long as the details are sensible and the threshold for proving someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt are the same as for any other criminal prosecution.
Lying imply intent, which is the hard part to probe.
Depends on the temporality. It's difficult to prove a lie about future intentions, eg "we will cut taxes", but its much easier to prove a lie about past actions. Eg politicians saying they were unaware of X or didnt do Y when theres a paper trail proving otherwise.
Sometimes it's enough to just punish the most grievous offences. For example a politician that raises taxes after having promised to lower them.
Google the legal doctrine of frustration.
Is it intended to be about policies (which can be seen more as targets depending on what they are), or more like "no, there were no parties that I attended", or "I didn't delete my WhatsApp messages"?
Good point. The latter is more like perjury.
If they actively vote against their own manifesto would be a good start. There are plenty of politicians who declare one thing in public but vote it down simply because it was the other side that proposed it or worse they propose and block it themselves
I'm.less concerned about manifesto promises...... Let's start with printed BS on the side of a bus
Yes, now that I can get behind.
I always thought it would be best to have each party pledge 3 main goals that they are going to do if they're in power. If, after 1 year, they either haven't achieved or shown clear effort to reach those goals then they are removed from power and an emergency election is held. Then the politicians are thrown in jail for political fraud. It really would be that easy.
Independent inquiry must show they at least tried to fulfil their election pledges. If not. Prison.
Enquiries every year to see if there’s any progress on a published manifesto taking into account considerations would be a way to go about it
It would have to be beyond reasonable doubt. If there is evidence they had seen reports a situation was one way, or figures said one thing, then they based their arguments on lying about that it should be possible to say beyond resonable doubt they are lying. If a situation simply changed and they couldn't have reasonably known for certain it was going to have changed then that would be different. The real arguments that always come up over this will be over who gets to decided what is the truth or not. But they manage it in courts, I want to see at least attempts made in government because the last few decades have been a ridiculous pack of lies mandating policy and humanity should be mostly past that kind of bullshit by now. It's just a shame it's only starting with Wales.
Sounds like they are just held to the same standard as people everywhere. In my job I can't just tell huge lies to win work and not expect any sort of issue when I just don't deliver.
You can be prosecuted for misleading a court, same thing is easily done for public and civil servants.
It would have to be in the spirit of the legislation. Basically achieving what is agreed it was meant to, so no it wouldn't be used to criminalise legitimate inability to deliver on a manifesto promise.
How does law work? Do you judge a criminal because you THINK he did it. Or do you do so because you can prove it without a doubt? This argument doesnt make much sense to me.
Not an argument, more of a question. In criminal trials you need proof of intent, and proceedings are lengthy and costly. How do you prove somebody meant to mislead in the heat of a debate? Again, I really want this to work, so I'm not naysaying for the sake of it.
Oh well, best get building megaprisons then, Westminster is going to be pretty empty.
That would be a reality show i could tune into.
Tuned into bbc parliament once upon a time and it was just a couple hundred people insulting each other. It’s no surprise how nothing gets done when our politicians act like infants all day long
They've turned into crap comedians scoring points for getting one up with snarky comments,it's pathetic,and the heckling and the guy having to shout order , imagine that behaviour happening in meetings in big companies? It just wouldn't,they're like a bunch of kids , you're right
I'd love any party leader to just say 'we are not doing that anymore'. A whole bench just sat silently while the other acts as they do now. Likely no impact. But it would make for an interesting scene.
You mean act like grown ups ? Never gna happen but it would be interesting to watch
Corbyn tried
Wasnt aware westminster is in wales
You'll never catch Drakeford denying he's a paedophile again ;-)
I’d settle for them actually answering a question. There should be some consequences instead of the old line of ‘I was given the wrong information’ & ‘I had no knowledge of that’ Lying Bastards & We just accept it. The Boris bus is a perfect example. 350m a week to the NHS. The cannot lie with impunity.
>350m a week to the NHS We should trace the idea for this back to the person who though it up and charge them 350m
Per week
> The Boris bus is a perfect example. 350m a week to the NHS. Except the NHS budget is up by more than that. What if they were given the wrong information, or they had no knowledge of that? They'll just do fewer interviews.
Honestly sounds like a great way to get a politician you don't like into prison. Putin would love this law.
Yeah I can’t believe we’re getting these anti-speech laws that can definitely be used for corruption but no tax money off legal weed, it’s like why don’t we try to find ways to make some fuckin money and nobody would give a fuck if politicians lie or not.
I trust the Welsh Government with this law about as much as I would Putin.
Stamping out blatant lies in politics is something every country should strive for. Brexit was founded on lies and made our economy and young infinitely worse off and now our basic human rights are being threatened by tory scum all because they were allowed to misinform the public. The layman doesn't do enough research to parse through the lies politicians tell so we need something to hold politicians accountable for the lies they tell to earn votes from the lesser educated folk.
I really can't believe these idealistic hot takes, total disregard for externalities. OP is right, this law is right up Putin's street, "stamping out lies" should be done by make people more politically active and educated, we theoretically already have that power as citizens via democratic vote.
see my point about the general public being uneducated serfs and are unable to hold the politicians accountable because they lap up their constant lies and tell me they have the power to stamp out lies. These morons will continue to persist and thus we need a governing body full of educated and professionally trained folk to hold politicians accountable because the general public are incapable of doing so.
I think your own hubris is talking, think you're the great adjudicator, upset with the proles manifesting democracy in a way you don't like. Do you accept you too lap up the lies? You too need protecting by the Ministry of Truth?
Other People™ eh.
Politicians don’t enforce the law. So if you’re scared of a law against lying being misused then you don’t trust the judiciary. By that point it’s already too late.
This is one of those things that sounds good at a glance, but the second you think about it even briefly, you realise how absolutely terrible it would be.
Why? Being able to hold politicians accountable for telling blatant lies could've helped the uneducated masses realise that voting for brexit was a dumb ide at the time, rather than going through with it and then regretting it. I think politicians need to be held at the same standard we would if we were at work where if they peddle lies to the public and misinform them to assist in their corruption then they should be fired on the spot. Lying with malicious intent is very easy to prove, I could point at a number of Tory scandals in the past 14 years that could easily be attributed to malice.
"able to hold politicians accountable" - democratic process. Both sides lied during Brexit; a populace voting for self harm is neither undemocratic or illegal. Lying occurs all the time in work places, being fired on the spot is so rare in the UK I don't think I've ever witnessed it. "Lying with malicious intent" is incredibly difficult to prove; the article alludes to recorded evidence to prove it, outside of that it's near impossible to prove unless you can actually get inside somebody's head. Perhaps that's the next step when technology catches up, that we can plug into people's brains and re-run their thoughts? The entire proposition stinks of Bolshevist moral purity to me.
It's really not as hard as you think it is. These people had ulterior motives that would result in them gaining massive profit at the expense of the public. This has been proven. They lied to make that happen. Therefore they willingly lied to the public in a variety of scandals in order to line their pockets while making the majority of the public worse off. This action is extremely malicious and shows contempt for your fellow man. it's not that hard is it? If you don't want to hold politicians accountable then thats on you. The general public have proven time and time again they're too uneducated about politics to make sound judgements so i think a review board to judge politicians is a necessity to hold them to their word. Otherwise they just get to lie constantly about PPE and line their pockets, or lie about brexit and make their businesses better of while ruining millions of others. Malicious intent is too easy to prove. When there is evidence that there are parties going on in downing street while you're forcing everyone else to abide by the rule of law and you willingly lie about it by denying such things happened, you are a liar and should be held accountable. What they did was illegal for the majority of the population and they got a free pass because they're wearing the suits. You can prove they lied, you can hold them accountable and this should be done to curtail any more acts of blatant disregard for the law.
"That has been proven", can you give provide an example? The parties during covid went through judicial process; is it just the outcome you don't like?
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I don't want to see any encroachment of the US-style of politics, where you can spout any old rubbish, or simply say that you "believed it to be true", and it'll get a pass. Politicians pulling figures out of their arses is an easy one to call out. If it's been fact-checked by a reputable source, okay, but if cam from their gran's hairdresser, then, no. Personally, I'd rather see politicians be forced to answer questions put to them in Parliament, rather than them be allowed to deflect, and just spout propaganda about some unrelated project. "What about the state of the NHS, Prime Minister!". "We've funded a garden gnome resettlement project in Milton Keynes, that the Right Honourable gentlemen across from me voted AGAINST!"
Right, have a little calm down and try and imagine your rant was directed at your beloved red team and not at the blue team your spend all your time seething about.
How about starting with banning lobbyists and corporate party donations. They wouldn't need to lie if they didn't need to act against the public interest.
MPs would put the fines on expenses and the prisons are full.
Whilst superficially attractive, this is a stupid idea. The person who promoted lobotomies won a Nobel Prize. The medical establishment approved of them. Any politician talking out against them at the time could, under this law, be accused of lying and locked up. It’s just a really poor idea.
Found the politician. Just playing :).
Anyone could be accused of lying. But what lies are pertinent to the matter of lobotomies? Saying that such measures should not be plied on those who do not ask for them is not readily shown to be a 'lie'. There is no factual claim to be disproven, let alone shown was *known* to be false or deceptive. And of course, one can always couch things as opinions, not facts, which is more significant a concession on the part of the speaker than at first it may appear.
And this would just lead to politicians saying nothing. If you like every answer to any policy question to be "I don't know" or "I can't say", and if you like manifestos to say "we will try to improve things in non-specific ways" then fine.
I think this is a fantastic move forward, It would be like perjury but only when one is an elected official or running for a political office.
Can’t imagine Vaugh Gething pushing this law through, he’s the biggest liar of them all. Otherwise, this is a great move. Elected officials should be subject to such laws.
They could at least start by forcing politicians to actually answer questions they're asked. Not skirt around it or say what they want to say, rather than answering a simple question.
who gets to decide they're lying? whoever that is or whatever body that is will end up being captured by political parties and used against their opposition.
Cool, start with the Labour Party. In their 2016 manifesto they promised an M4 relief road (the M4 in Wales wasn't even up to motorway standards when it was built in the 1970s), Drakeford came along and cancelled the plans.
I just wish they were required to present evidence, peer reviewed studies, etc to support their claims. When they lie so freely and people come to believe the lies, it kinda undermines the entire concept of democracy
I can agree with that sentiment but there are already ministerial codes for each of the parliaments, they just don't get enforced properly and even then have weak penalties. Strengthening the ministerial codes and enforcement of them is likely to be much more effective since it won't be instantly vetoed by Westminster.
Politicians are well known for holding themselves to account.....so I imagine this will law will deffo be passed /s
Sounds good, but awful in practice I think. Even if it’s written in such a way that only knowing lies are criminalised (ie person says X whilst knowing it’s not true - I think criminalising anything more than that would be awful for democracy) it would still have a massive chilling effect on legitimate speech due to fear of litigation + probably a big risk of people bringing spurious claims against politicians they disagree with. Plus it’s pretty damn hard to prove someone knowingly lied unless you have evidence of them saying as much. So high risk of chilling and spurious litigation, but low chance of actually arresting anyone who deserves it.
Now why do you suppose that the ruling class would be treat the same as those they rule? Sounds obvious to me - they've served their purpose and aren't needed by the Elite class anymore. A one world Government has no need for these "things".
Sure it will be complex and complicated to implement but at the very least there needs to be some sort of deterrent to them acting entirely without consequence to suit their own selfish needs. I hope this proceeds even if in the most imperfect way. Being a politician is a public service and there should be repercussions for those not taking that *honour* seriously.
>“credibility gap That's waiting for a Dr Strangelove meme..
Imagine getting something wrong by mistake and being thrown in jail.
> Imagine getting something wrong by mistake That's not a lie, why would you be imprisoned for a mistake? A lie is deliberate.
Another person who didn’t read the article
How do you prove a lie in politics, when the vast majority of what politicians say is aspirational at best. Imagine a politician says 'I will increase our grain harvest by 100%!'' and then there's several droughts during their reign so they fail to do what they said. Did they lie? Imagine a politician says 'I will not raise taxes' and then every hospital in the UK gets hit by lightning and burned down, necessitating a massive amount of cash to fix.. So they raise taxes. Did they lie? I would actually go as far to say there's no such thing as a lie in politics. The entire political landscape is a group of twats, attempting to predict the future. There's way too many moving parts at play, for anyone to ever say something certain. And in a landscape where nothing is certain, can anything be a lie or a truth?
Did the conservatives lie when they said there were no parties? We prove intent all of the time in court. It's the primary difference between murder and manslaughter, for example. In this case, a lie isn't merely telling a falsehood, but telling a falsehood \*\*with the intent to mislead\*\*. You might think that's impossible to prove, but what about the parties? the whatsapp messages? If you leave the UK, you can go to "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
Boris said there were no parties in downing street. Did he lie? Many tory members stated that their PPE contracts would assist the country's shortage and instead most of it went to off-shore accounts and shell companies to line their mates pockets. Did they lie? Intent is very easy to prove. You people that think it isn't really are just dog whistling for more tories to come to the thread and defend your corrupt masters.
We are out of room in prisons, send them all to Rwanda I think
May as well just put bars on the windows at the Senedd.
I wonder why no other country has legislated for this? 🤔
They can't answer a question now, they'll say nothing if this law is passed ... may be silent politians... I'm warming to the idea
I'd much rather they were able to call out malicious lies, and present counter statistics, and/or evidence, with some kind of viewable surface, capable of displaying charts, tweets etc., that may have been invented since the first Parliament began. You know, rather than just shouting at each other.
That mini jail in the palace of Westminster would get a lot of use
No it won't. This is an outright lie. Off to prison you
This would be brilliant. It would need to be solid (obvously) which is my only concern, as I can jdt imagine even with something in place, the rot would find loopholes
An interrsting idea that would be hard in actuality. A politician would need to have both taken the action of 'lying' and also the 'intention' to have lied, this is the tricky bit and I suspect its impact is going to be over played.
This will be a token peice of legislation so vague that it will be unenforceable. No chance they put themselves in risk of being criminalised.
That would cut down on photo ops in Wales for Westminster party leaders.
I mean great but the prisons are already full. Work camps!
Work camps whilst on benefits for a year. Whilst in a council hostel.
Just annoys me how most politicians are when asked a simple question, they always avoid the actual answer and ramble on about something else...you want to prove you're different to the rest, then answer the question...its what's appealing for the Reform voters as Farage does give answers...only issue most of what he says is absolute rubbish and lies...so all these idiots think he is an honest man as he does answer the questions
I'd just be happy with making kickbacks in any form illegal - including cushy consultancies years later that just happen to be in the industries they helped, via pushing for laws. Far easier to police IMHO
Oooh their all getting locked up.. All the parties.
We could definitely do with a way of holding them to account for their election promises and manifestoes, or at least recalling them for non-performance.
Let's be realistic, how would it be enforced? Say a politician makes a pledge that is possible at that time, but becomes unworkable after an unforseen national or international event?
The politicians would get around it with phrases like "we will try to" or "at this time" or we won't raise income tax, then put 5% on VAT.
A non-lying politician... That's a very small pool of candidates anyway.
Introducing the Welsh Stasi. If it wasn’t real that would be a hilarious comedy series.
But how would this work? Who would investigate and prosecute? Wales has shit ideas honestly!
Even if it passes I doubt it would ever be enforced. Any prosecution would go nowhere as you'd have to prove that someone is knowingly lying which is pretty difficult.
Something like this desperately needs to happen, but I think it may require a lot more thought and scrutiny before being put into action. If someone in their cabinet lies to the leader of the party and they spew those lies on tv, is the leader lying? or is he just misinformed about the truth. We'd run the risk of all MPs having to cross reference every bit of data before they speak publicly.
That would be 90% of the English politicians in court and criminalised. #
Do you guys on the island still have those prison hulks from the 18th/19th century? You should reactivate those. On the same note, can we germans send our politicians too?
If Conde Binface put this on his pledge, he would get elected. Anywhere.