Originally Posted by adzii_nufc (Post 35909988)

I'm sure we could free up space by just imprisoning the ones that fiddle/d their expenses. :erm:

Are there any UK prisons with a moat that needs a good cleaning?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35909957)

That's unworkable though. How do you easily define a promise and when is it ok to break it? People are quite partisan and these things are difficult to define. For example £350 million on the NHS is an 'aspiration'. The Liberal Democrats promised not to raise tuition fees but they didn't actually win the election. What do you then do about changing circumstances which make promises made in good faith untenable?

Even the fact this has been related to Corbyn's tuition fees promise is dodgy. The manifesto doesn't actually promise existing students will get their debt wiped out and that promise seems to be a mixture of a vague 'we'll see what we can do' answer from Corbyn to the NME and other Labour politicians promising it. Would it still count as illegal in that case?

It just seems to stem from an unhealthy desire people have to criminalise their political opponents. Obviously I do not think people should lie to win elections but with the definition of what counts as a lie so disputed it seems a bad idea to make it illegal. Everyone will just be setting the police on each other.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35910064)

We had this discussion before, about what the people who invented democracy thought and did about lying politicians, there doesn't have to be wholesale jailings there has to be the threat of it to show we're sick of them and their antics and to remind them that they work for us not the other way round, throwing in a other and and it might also put a stop to the shysters like peter mandelson being sacked for dishonesty being brought back in a new role after a few months, I've never understood it, a minister proves to be highly inappropriate in one department can in a matter of months be considered competent enough to run another different one, the fact that in the main their figureheads telling others to implement policy makes it even worse :rant:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35910094)

But tokenistic gestures make for bad laws. The issue is so vague that the law will be either so restrictive as to be meaningless or open enough to invite all sorts of challenges.

The punishment for lying politicians should come from the public but it doesn't really happen. We are too partisan so that we're more lenient to our own side whilst too harsh on political opponents, the press is the same way. If May had made the statement Corbyn did about Tuition fees then The Sun would be no where near as outraged, pointing out it wasn't in the manifesto, likewise if May had said she had never met the IRA despite photographic evidence to the contrary then social media would be spitting with venom over the lie. Most of us do this, just human nature.

Then you have cynics who lazily assume they're all the same which means genuine, hard-working, MPs get chucked in with the shysters. Simultaneously giving bad MPs cover and good MPs undeserved grief.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35910179)

It wouldn't be tokenism, it would be the real deal, it just wouldn't be wheeled out for every minor fib, just the whoppers. These things don't have to be hard, if the law is badly written we'll just rewrite it until we get it right.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35910182)

Could do but would this include the 'sorta' lies?

For example:



Is not, technically, a lie. The 'lets' is enough to get them off the hook strictly speaking.

Also Corbyn saying:



Is not technically a lie either.

In both cases they were happy to let the perception that this is what would happen float around to help them in the referendum but in both cases they were never strictly promises. Politicians rarely outright lie, they usually word their 'promises' in such a way to have a get out clause.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35910184)

or like if the people vote to leave the EU iwill invoke article 50

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35910193)

But he did in a way, he withdrew from parliament, almost as good as.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35910195)

there's a big difference between i will do it and running away and letting someone else do it

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35910182)

Could do but would this include the 'sorta' lies?

For example:
"Let's spend £350m on the BHS instead"

Is not, technically, a lie. The 'lets' is enough to get them off the hook strictly speaking.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35910273)

Whilst I get your point, the lie was that we send £350m to the EU each week when we don't; the true figure according to the ONS is less than £200m.
http://www.cityam.com/241925/calcula...-the-eu-budget

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35910280)

And we get lot of it back through farm subsidies and regeneration in areas like the NE and SW of England. (Ironically pro-Brexit areas, they'll soon find out where the money came from. The post-Brexit Britain will be even more SE focused, and more divided between rich and poor ...)

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35910273)

Whilst I get your point, the lie was that we send £350m to the EU each week when we don't; the true figure according to the ONS is less than £200m.
http://www.cityam.com/241925/calcula...-the-eu-budget

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35910182)

Could do but would this include the 'sorta' lies?

For example:



Is not, technically, a lie. The 'lets' is enough to get them off the hook strictly speaking.

Also Corbyn saying:



Is not technically a lie either.

In both cases they were happy to let the perception that this is what would happen float around to help them in the referendum but in both cases they were never strictly promises. Politicians rarely outright lie, they usually word their 'promises' in such a way to have a get out clause.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35910302)

We wouldn't have technicalities, we'd have certainty and anyone that thought they could hide behind get out clauses would soon find that they can't when they're immediately asked for clarification, interviews, adverts and tv shows couldn't continue or be broadcast until they're pinned down and before you know it straight answers and telling the truth are second nature to them, just like it is for the rest of us.

Oh and for the record I think both corbyn and the bus are liars, there was no ambiguity when they were making these bold statements or when they were allowing people to misinterpret them on purpose