Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 03:12:01 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Lying in politics - should it be a crime?

Started by Fambo Number Mive, June 28, 2022, 10:54:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Fambo Number Mive

QuoteAn MP will launch a fresh attempt to bring "world-beating liar" Boris Johnson to justice as she bids to ban lies from politics.

Plaid Cymru's Westminster leader, Liz Saville Roberts, unveils a Bill to Parliament on Tuesday in the latest struggle to hold the Prime Minister to account...

Ms Saville Roberts will use a device called the Ten-Minute Rule to introduce her Elected Representatives (Prohibition of Deception) Bill.

Under her planned legislation, MPs and members of the Welsh Senedd, Stormont Assembly and Scottish Parliament, as well as Police and Crime Commissioners and elected mayors, could be convicted of making "false or misleading statements".

It would not cover local councillors.

As well as statements made in parliaments, it would include social media, TV and radio broadcasts and election material.

Those convicted would face a fine and could be banned from standing for election for up to 10 years.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/mp-attempts-bring-boris-johnson-27330479

I'm not sure about this. On the one hand, politicians seem to be lying more than ever - Johnson routinely gives false information in the House of Commons and at press conferences and nothing happens.

On the other hand, who is deciding what is a lie? Is it the courts? I'm sceptical of the British justice system being able to be trusted to decide which politicians have lied. And would politicians care about being fined given how wealthy many of them are.

Sebastian Cobb

Dunno about crime but there should be some punitive measures if it can be reasonably demonstrated someone's talking shit (especially if decision-making is predicated on that). As it stands you get a bollocking in the HoC just for pointing it out

holyzombiejesus

Be good if this applied to lies told in the past and also included lies made in leadership elections and the punishment was to be pushed in to a bed of nettles on a daily basis and there was dog dirt in the nettles.

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: holyzombiejesus on June 28, 2022, 11:01:48 AMBe good if this applied to lies told in the past and also included lies made in leadership elections and the punishment was to be pushed in to a bed of nettles on a daily basis and there was dog dirt in the nettles.

This I can get on board with.

gilbertharding

I've said it before - but the real reason you're not allowed to call someone a liar in the House of Commons is nothing to do with honour codes or anything like that. It's because if they allowed it, that is literally all they would have time to do.

bgmnts

Not even trying to be funny but obviously it would be impossible.

Wonderful Butternut

Quote from: gilbertharding on June 28, 2022, 11:22:20 AMI've said it before - but the real reason you're not allowed to call someone a liar in the House of Commons is nothing to do with honour codes or anything like that. It's because if they allowed it, that is literally all they would have time to do.

Reminded of Mary Lou McDonald in the Dail a few years back (paraphrased).

"If you object to the term 'lies', what term should I use instead? Fibs? Untruths? Porky Pies?"

Cold Meat Platter

The honourable gentleman appears to be experiencing an undergarment conflagration event.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Fambo Number Mive on June 28, 2022, 10:54:30 AMOn the other hand, who is deciding what is a lie? Is it the courts? I'm sceptical of the British justice system being able to be trusted to decide which politicians have lied. And would politicians care about being fined given how wealthy many of them are.

Why? We let them decide on whether people go to jail for their whole lives? I think you'd want a jury and just need to accept that there is always going to be some errors but I can't think of a better solution here.

Poobum

You'd think being part of a legislature would make you liable to perjury laws. You'd think.

Fambo Number Mive

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on June 28, 2022, 02:37:36 PMWhy? We let them decide on whether people go to jail for their whole lives? I think you'd want a jury and just need to accept that there is always going to be some errors but I can't think of a better solution here.

True it doesn't sound so bad with a jury system, I was thinking of a judge ruling like I think they do with trademark infringement (was it a judge for the OFAH trial?)

It would clog up an already very busy legal system, I suppose the fines could go towards funding the system. I think fines should be linked to ability to pay, although I think they should do that for the majority of fines.

shoulders

This sort of thing illustrates policy should not and cannot exist in a vacuum.

What ordinary people need, including those who don't know they need it yet, or can't quite articulate their instincts, is accountability from their elected representatives. If an MP has lied then their constituency alone should have real power to instantly recall them, fuck them off and replace them.

Instead even when you are a fucking paedophile the seat is vacant and a constituency goes unrepresented while the court case goes through.

Open selection of MPs and a true power of recall will itself hold MPs to higher standards and ensure their conduct and actions are closer to being appropriate.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Fambo Number Mive on June 28, 2022, 03:23:04 PMTrue it doesn't sound so bad with a jury system, I was thinking of a judge ruling like I think they do with trademark infringement (was it a judge for the OFAH trial?)

It would clog up an already very busy legal system, I suppose the fines could go towards funding the system. I think fines should be linked to ability to pay, although I think they should do that for the majority of fines.

All you'd need is a few landmark cases and then it would just serve a role as deterrent.

Fambo Number Mive

I always wonder how easy it is for constituency parties to deselect their MP. I suppose a lot of Tory constituency parties don't care but I find it astonishing what some Labour constituency parties put up with.

Kate Hoey is not a liar but her views and votes seem totally opposed to Labour, surprised the Vauxhall Labour Party put up with her for so long.


MojoJojo

(thought I typed this before)

I think this was on a Mark Steele thing, although applying specifically to the manifesto. The main problem is it will just make politicians even more mealy mouthed - they'll basically stop saying anything more controversial than the sun will rise tomorrow.

markburgle

There's probably times when you have to lie for national security reasons, e.g. "yes I would launch a retaliatory nuclear strike" when secretly the answer is no, you wouldn't (maybe it's naive of me to imagine there's ever been a pm who secretly wouldn't but it's just an example).

But overall I think we desperately need something like this

shoulders

Quote from: MojoJojo on June 28, 2022, 05:06:06 PM(thought I typed this before)

I think this was on a Mark Steele thing, although applying specifically to the manifesto. The main problem is it will just make politicians even more mealy mouthed - they'll basically stop saying anything more controversial than the sun will rise tomorrow.

Hence why, in my view, it would be a better idea to make MPs more accountable through an open selection and direct recall process which itself would act as a moderating force as the public would be able to sanction egregious behaviour. Would such a system be foolproof, no, but it ends jobs for life and makes MPs think twice before spouting blatant bullshit they know currently they are insulated from the consequences of.

elliszeroed

The two lies I think should be legislated:
- In parliament
- In Public - that is, in a public speech or a television interview.

But I don't think they can without an external, independent fact-checking group based within parliament.

How to prove though? Did the MP simply not know all the facts- in which case parties would simply put an idiot on who didn't know anything, who can spout shit without inpunity (like now) because that's what they heard (or whatever)?

markburgle

Quote from: elliszeroed on June 28, 2022, 08:01:13 PMThe two lies I think should be legislated:
- In parliament
- In Public - that is, in a public speech or a television interview.

But I don't think they can without an external, independent fact-checking group based within parliament.

How to prove though? Did the MP simply not know all the facts- in which case parties would simply put an idiot on who didn't know anything, who can spout shit without inpunity (like now) because that's what they heard (or whatever)?

Maybe you'd need to also have rules against speaking on issues you're unqualified to speak on

MojoJojo

Quote from: elliszeroed on June 28, 2022, 08:01:13 PMThe two lies I think should be legislated:
- In parliament

Worth noting that misleading parliament is already against the rules*. It's toothless in practice, but you have to work out what the difference would be. The key problem is parliament is ruled by a load of vague conventions, and no one has worked out how to put in oversight that both sides would agree too and wouldn't be corrupted by politics.

An idealistic view of the UK system would have the Queen do it.


*but you know, politicians so the punishment is you are expected to resign.

Sebastian Cobb

Quote from: MojoJojo on June 28, 2022, 05:06:06 PM(thought I typed this before)

I think this was on a Mark Steele thing, although applying specifically to the manifesto. The main problem is it will just make politicians even more mealy mouthed - they'll basically stop saying anything more controversial than the sun will rise tomorrow.

So glad that Mark's now become more mealy mouthed and afraid to say anything controversial.