TLDR at the end I just post how I propose to convince the new parliament.
If polling is anything near to close. Starmer will enter parlimemt on the 5th with a landslide majority.
Time for us to remember the court case PM Johnson won for the 350m lie on a bus. The high Court simply stated.
Parliment has made no law banning lies during a campaign.
Well we really do have an opportunity to convince Starmer to change that. With Sunak and Co clearly following the last elections lead. Lieing about the civil service backing up their cost estimates.
It is time parliment tried to build confidence in election claims. This would only be practical when it comes to provable falsehoods of fact. Such as the claims made about Starmers campaign. After they have been informed the civil service did not analyse the data they used.
Unfortunately forcing a party to follow its manifesto is not really doable. And if parliment made the law. The next parliment would cancel it.
How to convince Starmer et al
OK so most will remember back in the coalition. The new government claimed to want to be responsive. So they set up an official, way for the public to request parliment do things. Resulting in parliment responding with crappy excuses every single time 10k signatures. Or a dumb argument in committee at 100k.
Now consider a new majority land slide parliment. Walking into government on July the 5th. With a social media publicised request to make it illegal for election campaigns, to continue to publish claims known to be false.
Its a simple law. If your party has received evidence that your clai is false. You must stop using it or face legal punishment.
So assuming 10k votes. The new government would need to write a response claiming they think lieing is OK.
Pretty sure the electorate can eviserate them on social media after that. Changing their mind. The new tory opposition leader. (Or Lib Dem maybe?). Would sure as he’ll leap on the new government for such a claim.
But honestly to get the response needed. 100k signatures and the parliment required to have a public committee debate on their right to lie in campaigns.
No new government with a huge majority is going to be willing to face that.
Help
If you have read this far. You will recognise, I am not great at grammar and my wording is not consise. So when it comes to writing the partition on the parliment website. Someone more skilled would be best. Or a discussion here as to the best wording etc.
Do please if this idea seem worth while. (Let’s face it what have we to lose. A few mins a day signing a partition and posting to social media over the election. )
Then please join a discussion here. To try to push this idea forward over the next month.
You must log in or register to comment.
Starmer on July 5th:
We’ve seen the desperation that fourteen year’s of Tory chaos has brought us. They’ve even stooped so low as to lie in order to gain votes. Now that I am your prime minister I promise I will never lie and I will work tirelessly to improve the country for everyone.
Heckling news journo:
What about HumanPenguin’s suggestion about making it illegal to lie in politics?
Starmer:
Now is not the time to introduce laws when our country is hurting, our children are hurting, our NHS is hurting after fourteen years of Tory chaos. We need to heal the division and come together. I’ve said that we won’t lie and you should just trust me.
That’s kinda pretty much how it will go, I think.
Hence the discussion,
The type of lie Sunak told is very different from the lies told at every election. It is not just more lies. It is a dangerous falsehood based on definable evidenced facts.
IE not that Labours policys will cost 2k. While that is a very questionable claim. Fact checking a Ready handles such things.
But the fact that the treasury supported his data. That was an outright lie. To the point starmer was publicly willing to call it one. Something political figures are historically more careful of them actual lies.
It is dangerous because voters know the civil service is not allowed to be politically motivated. They Camrose their jobs for it at any time. But during an election. It is more the a rule. It is the whole mandate of the civil service.
So when Sunak claimed this falsely, he was trying to override the existence of fact checkers by telling his voters he had more reliable independent evidence.
This is why I think, we need the partition to be very concise and well worded,
But also a social media compain based on that very clear limitation in what is being asked for.
iE we have 4 weeks and the whole of the Internet. To address these questions before starmer can dismiss them.
Its a simple law. If your party has received evidence that your clai is false. You must stop using it or face legal punishment.
Let us reflect on how parties might react to this and how a simple law might not achieve your aims.
Another wrinkle is deciding who is going to police this, who is the arbiter of truths and lies?
In almost every case I can think of, political parties already avoid lying.
With statistics they can find the right one to backup their point and ignore the other study which contradicts them. They offer opinions, points of view, oversimplificatios and predictions.
None of these are lies. Manipulation of the same family certainly. It was true that we sent £350 million per week to the EU, except it really wasn’t and yet if you offered evidence that it was a lie it’d be easy to produce evidence that it wasn’t. Truth is complex.
Add to this we have a mechanism built into democracy that is intended to punish parties who lie or otherwise behave this way, its the voters. For this to work we need an informed and aware population to vote in elections, your post suggests you don’t see the voters as capable of this?
To achieve an informed electorate who understands complexity and nuance getting out of the simple mindset of right and wrong is needed, away from simple truths and lies.
In short… “Examine a law not for the good it will do if correctly applied but for the harm it will cause if incorrectly applied”
None of these are lies. Manipulation of the same family certainly. It was true that we sent £350 million per week to the EU, except it really wasn’t and yet if you offered evidence that it was a lie it’d be easy to produce evidence that it wasn’t. Truth is complex.
Just to nit pick a bit, because of how the rebate worked we literally didn’t transfer that 350m figure, as the discount was applied immediately, like, er, a meal deal? 😁
Detail counts!
Let us reflect on how parties might react to this and how a simple law might not achieve your aims.
They will respond by having 3rd parties announce their lies. But hesitate to repeat them as officials of the campaign.
Another wrinkle is deciding who is going to police this, who is the arbiter of truths and lies?
The same people who examine any evidence. The courts. There is a reason I propose the simple statement. If clear evidence dose not proove a statement wrong. It is not covered.
IE here the civil service informed that they did not consider the data. So a court can easily confirm the data used by the civil service. And confirm the campaign had received information.
So the result of the law would.d be campaigns have to think about claims before repeating g them. Or face potential of legal, punishment.
In almost every case I can think of, political parties already avoid lying.
Yep except that seems to be changing. Sunak was very open about claiming the treasury civil servents had approved his data. After the treasury had informed him it had not.
Personally I think the boris bus (That likely would not be included here) court case. Has drematicallly changed how desperate party politicians see lies. But of course I can’t see into their minds, only propose a solution.
With statistics they can find the right one to backup their point and ignore the other study.
Agreed. And that is by definition not a lie. But when they use claims of professional bodies backing them up. Or in this case professionals civil servents who are required not to express political, bias. It is a very different level. Much much more important then statistics that every one subconsciously knows are not facts.
The treasury agrees with our figures is the lie. Not the figures. Given the status of the treasury it is also a freaking dangerous lie. And as the treasury had informed Labour of its falsehood. Their civil service non political involvmet requirements mean they will have informed the Conservatives as well. So the lie is provable. The evidence is their to be collected. Evidence not of a questionable claim. That is not a lie and not expected to be covered by my proposal. But evidence of the claiming is backed up by civil service independence.
In short… “Examine a law not for the good it will do if correctly applied but for the harm it will cause if incorrectly applied”
Thank you for being the first to respond. We basically agree on the idea. But as I said wording is where I need help.
The fact is you read my post. And assumed I was trying to prevent campaign claims and data. I am not and honestly tried and failed to make that clear in my post.
Hence I need help.
Lies are a clear and definable thing. Even if politics distorts the idea of truth. What we saw yesterday was very much a new level of activity. One that needs shutting down before it becomes a common part of our elections.
My reason for mentioning the bus. Was not to include it. While it was scummy no one logical thought boris would be convicted.
But I feel the court openly stating that no As exists making election lies a crime. Rather then we can’t proove this is a lie.
While accurate. Has changed the way desperate politicians see the act of sharing knowingly false facts.
I agree this needs to be tackled, but I have a few thoughts.
What we saw with Johnson, et al, is that our system does not have protections in place against bad actors. All processes presume people are honourable. This is one of the main reasons why you cannot accuse another MP of lying in the Commons, but you can disagree, debate, bring other evidence, explain why their reasoning is wrong, etc.
That may sound like symantics, but lying isn’t the same as being wrong. Lying is when you know what you are saying is false, and you say it anyway.
And because things are less black and white than we’d like - especially in politics and economics, neither of which are hard science - you have a pretty big grey area where good faith research can show very different outcomes.
As such you’d need a burden of proof that is very pretty high, because you’d need to prove the person saying X knew it was false. If it isn’t high enough, then it would absolutely be abused by bad actors commissioning biased research to compel their opposition to stop saying X.
The 350m example, and Sunak’s 2k one, are both clearly lies. In the first case we literally didn’t send the money, and in the second the Civil Service had already told ministers privately the figures were not reliable.
Having these two examples being criminally prosecutable would absolutely be an improvement on our current postion, and waiting for perfect is worse than a step forward, but we’d need to be very very careful to not bring in legislation that can be abused by bad actors to silence legitimate opposition.
Again this is why I feel I need help in wording the partition.
Honestly the 350m bus lie was never going to be proven illegal. Even if a law like this existed.
We did send 350m to the EU. So it was just a claim about what we can do with it. As the savings not existing is a claim about future actions. Nothing will ever proove it was a lie. Because the facts to proove the new world would not have it. Can always be changed.
It like me telling you if you jump of a building you won’t die. Of course most would say I am lieing. But their are so many things that could happen in the future. And no way of prooving what I know of the actions around me.
How can you proove I did not know there will be a fire man with a inflatable arriving before you jump.
But if I tell your lover you jumped and did not die. Things are very different.
And that is where sunak was different.
If he told parliment labour will cast 2k in tax would not be a lie, just a very very questionable claim. If starmer jumped of the building he’d survive like claim. He is making assumptions no one can clai is false. Only that voters wou.d be stupid accept it.
But when he claimed the treasury supported the claim. If he had done that in parliment he would have faced parliamentary punishment. As pathetic as it has been. Technically they could jail him but would not.
Because not only dose he know his party did not provide the same data to the treasury. He has been informed by the treasury before the debate. (We know this as the treasury informed Labour. And their non political civil service code required them to inform the tories as we. )
So the seriose risk is different to BJs bus.
In court while he was not convinced because the court said parliment had made no law. If parliment had then he likely would still be found not guilty.
Rushing Sunk looked at this differently.mhe knowingly and is evidenced to have told an out right lie about the treasurys actions. Not the actual 2kmthat is without the lie. Just an opinion.
And he did this the very first election where he saw court president stating no law existed.
We did send 350m to the EU. So it was just a claim about what we can do with it. As the savings not existing is a claim about future actions. Nothing will ever proove it was a lie
But here’s the thing, we literally didn’t, even the treasury confirmed it
Yeah but again its a matter of wording. The EU bill was 350m.
The bus lacked the extra information of.
Discounts, the value we get from it. Amd a whole list of other data making it false.
But as far as law is concerned saying 350m is a lie is ecvide ceded by the invoice. The fact other data was missing. Well yours and my mum would def call it a lie. And likely take a be,t to me in my time. Not sure your age. But the law less so they tend to have much more evidenced requirements for a falsehood the not admitting data.
Still utter scum. But not likely what we can demand a law to cover.
Rishi Sunk said something very very different.
The bill was 350m in the same way that the bill for a meal deal is >3.50, until the discount is applied.
When you pay, tesco don’t take all the money then give you a refund as two separate transactions, they apply the discount first, and you pay that price instead.
Telling people a meal deal costs 4.12 or whatever is the same claim, which is a clear lie.
Sorry this gets long. Please bare with it is why I am asking for help.
Yes. But as I say lies yours and my mum will disapprove of. And ones a court will consider provable are very different.
I am honestly trying to address the issue in a way that will not be trashed by politics in general. And societal attitudes of if its to hard don’t bother.
The simple fact is trying to stop Boris bus like lies. Is to hard for the public to attempt atm. We sure as hell are not going to form a viable agreed strategy in time to effect the fist 100 days. And honestly I think that is really important to move things in the right direction.
Risky Sunk is another matter all together. Not only because his lie is unquestionable as a lie. No argument can convince anyone that the treasury supported his claims as published. Even the most liberal court in the UK would have no choice but to agree the following points.
It was false under any interpretation. The treasury claims they had informed MPs is provable. Sunak and or his campaigners had the ability to prevent the lie before the debate.
This sort of thing no one can really claim we are unable to stop, Just take forcing parliament to pull its dangles out of the gravy boat.
So I am not saying the bus was not a lie. Of course it was. It is just the sort of lie no court can really prove beyond reasonable doubt. So even if we convince parliament the law needs to exist. It will be limited in its ability to effect such claims.
But we can make the likes of BJs campaigns way more careful with their claims. By addressing the much much more dangerous attempt by Rishi.
First is is more dangerous because the status of the treasury was used to reduce the effectiveness of fact checking. Lets face it Boris Bus was very much addressed. Fact checkers trashed it instantly. And we spent most of the election pointing it out.
Unfortunately convincing the faithful, of something they dont want. Can be impossible. Brexiters as a group knew it was a lie. Did not care. And just stated that the claims about economic bankruptcy were based on similar false accounting. As dumb as that logic is. Some remainers predicting it the second we voted was asking for the response.
But Rishi Told a lie that was aimed (in my unhumble opinion) to instantly make the non faithful question the accuracy of fact checkers.
He has known for the whole election cycle. That his faithful are reduced to a minority. So if he wants the level of support for a lie Johnson had. He needs to make every day voters question the bias of fact checker.
The treasury and civil servants in general (my ex was one) have a rule to not express political opinions on the job. They can lose their job or face demotions for failing to follow this. But more importantly is the time. During an election solution of parliament. Where the only ministers around working civil servants are incumbent ministers fighting for their job.
It is more then a rule. It is a mandate and the whole purpose of having civil servants rather then political appointments run the ministries. Their whole job purpose is to remain independent and make no changes to policy during the kings dissolution of parliamentary authority.
When people with this mandate are claimed to support the facts the Tory scum are exposing. It would naturally effect lots of undecided or even opposition decided voters that the independent fact checkers are the ones that lied.
Now here the media worked well. Once the labour party had announced a letter from the treasury leader. The media pounced on it. Fortunately I dont punish myself with GB news or the daily mail. But will guess they STFU rather then tried to claim the treasury letter is false. And we also know their is no way the civil service will contact the media themselves to express a political opinion. So trustworthy media really was the only thing that limited this harm.
So please anyone reading this remember that last sentence. Trustworthy media is the only thing that stopped Risky Sunk winning the fight over this very risky lie. Our history with the UK media makes it clear. This is not a situation that we can risk becoming common during any election period.
Separately, your grammar and wording are fine. We all can be a bit more concise, but you aren’t repeating the same thing over and over so it genuinely isn’t a problem.
It is infinitely more important to write in a way that is clear and easy to understand, than it is to be ultra consice.
There is nothing wrong with always wanting to improve a skill, but if anyone has made you feel bad about how you write, they are wrong and should ignore them.
The issue I see is how the parlimentry partitions website is set up.
I think intentionally. But will take of the tinfoil.
The partition only allows for a very very short statement.
Even with this post. Many reply think I am trying to address statistics and claims rather then the clear and obvious lie that the treasury supported Sunaks data.
The bus court case may have given sunak president to openly lie in a campaign.
But even if this law existed. The bus was not provable. Anyone logical knew he would win.
The bus simply said we pay the EU 350m lets do this,
So it lacked information rather then stated provable false facts.
Sunak stated provable false facts. IE civil servente back up this data.
Given labour had received evidence that was false. Before the debate. And the civil service has a mandate to be non political. Is is provable that the service would also have sent the tories the same letter.
So again very provable that the campaign knowingly let sunak lie. Id say tomintentionally limit the power of fact checkers with what they rightly see as a less questionable source.
This partition needs to be worded in a concise way. That means no one can question exactly what we want.
One very short paragraph is all we get.
Plus a social media complain is we can get another folks interested and informed on the goals.
The term is “petition”.
The government petition website is generally terrible, and it does seem deliberate. You can’t create an account to sign petitions, so every petition you sign makes you enter all your details again, then open the confirmation e-mail they sent to confirm your e-mail.
I think you need to take a step back and look at this more realistically - sure, Starmer could do this, but so could Sunak. What about Starmer’s behaviour and U-turns makes you think he would?
I am not actually thinking of this as a choice.
My point is we need to convince enouth people it is possible and important enough. That Starmer or Rishi Responding to the petition with their usual waffle will achive something that terrifies and elected PM.
The first 100 days ending up with lower polling numbers then the election.
The UK has since the days of TV. Judged a politician on how that handle the first 100 days. And in general the UK is pretty forgiving. To the point PMs failing to out last a lettuce was almost unheard of. Much more so post even a close election. Every PM is considered to have a mandate at that point. So the laws he or she tries to pass are considered to be the most direct will of the people. (despite fptp meaning only 30% often choose that leader).
So while Sunak polls are so low its hard to imagine anything coming across as negative if he some how pulls a win.
Stammer already has worries about being less popular dispite the potential of a big win. Polling wise. He like most will be keen to avoid anything that looks like betrayal in that first 100 days where polling is watched closly by media.
So that is where our power lies. If we can get the support on social media. And form a well worded petition with well over 100k votes. Forcing the new parliament to disuse openly in committee where everyone can see their claims.
The issue is not so much if. But how we avoid everyone watching falling for the idea we are trying to cover all lies. Rather then clear and informed false facts. Like the tresury viewed our data and agrees. When the party knows full well the treasury has told MPs to not make that claim as it is false.
Honestly, best of luck and it would be amazing if you succeeded. Sadly I think actively supporting this requires a lot more faith in electoralism than I have.
I accepted after the Corbyn era that neither the Labour party nor the media care to actually hold politicians they like responsible for anything, including popular demand. Get 100k signatures and you’ll get what you always get, a lame excuse and then you’ll be ignored. Or even if Starmer came out today and said “Lying is okay”, would that stop a Labour win? I doubt it.
You are never going to convince starmer - someone who is a bigger and more compulsive liar than Boris Johnson to make political lying illegal. Especially as lying will be what got him into the position of prime minister in the first place
