It beggars belief that this proposal could seriously take hold when even the Speaker of ‘The Mother or Parliaments’ routinely lets Ministers lie, dissemble and distort the truth for a cheap dig at the opposition.
They should be careful what they wish for, as any half-decent AI system could call them out in realtime then we’d be left with constant interruptions during speeches, hustings, door-to-door campaigning, TV interviews and Parliament itself.
I can see many voters thinking this is a good idea as they are fed up with politicians breaking their electioneering promises. It will be essential, therefore, that sensible and analytical commentators like yourself endeavour to ensure that this Orwellian proposal is exhaustively discussed in the media.
Just another thought - does the current Labour front bench really want to be held to account in this way?
A family member has told me that because I voted "Leave" I shouldn't ever be allowed to vote again. She is a lefty, champagne socialist, former senior home office official, who had to give up her holiday villa in France because of Brexit. My reason for voting "Leave" was that all immigrants should be treated equally. She disagreed.
My experience was very different. Personally, I voted leave myself and my family/ friends/work colleagues broke fairly evenly on the subject either way.
The remain voters among them were disappointed for sure, which is fair enough, nobody likes to lose. But none of us seriously fell out over it to that extent.
To take disappointment to the extreme of stopping talking altogether is way extreme.
The rancour over the EU referendum is actually what turned Prof Matt Goodwin from being a typical lefty academic into what he is today. Standing as a Reform UK candidate! He voted Remain, but understood that in a democracy, the majority wins. He became concerned that some Remainers kept insisting that 52% of voters were "wrong" and that for 10 years would not left it go.
Given that we already have laws by which victims of untruthful smears, slanders or libels can seek redress, the proposals you refer to are totally unnecessary.
Perhaps a better use of their time might be to seek ways to make the existing libel laws accessible to those on lower or medium incomes, so that these laws would hopefully no longer be the preserve of the very rich.
You are completely right that politicians routinely 'spin' the truth so that it better suits their respective agendas, but there is no law that can counter-act that, what we need is a vigorous public debate and a culture which encourages people to speak up, to challenge those in power and in authority.
Dreaming up new laws in the way referred here is ridiculous.
Excellent article Paul. Very informative and very worrying. One would imagine Welsh Labour and Labour UK would have their Fabian mate Judges to arbiter what constitutes a lie?
Superb analysis of the Remainer views on Brexit voters - how insulting to assume that the only reason those of us voted for Brexit was because we were duped by advertising! No - sovereignty was key for many of us. I am really concerned about the increasing authoritarian and anti democratic manoeuvring of those currently in power - ie the very people who call centre right wing parties (and by implication their supporters and voters) “fascist” or Nazi” are acting in the manner they purport to despise.
This is very much akin to campaigns to suppress so-called 'disinformation' and 'misinformation'. In other words, it is a move to protect mainstream and official lies from being contradicted by opinions and evidence against them.
Sadly, I feel that underlying all this has to be the calibre of the people we now have in politics.
A decent, honest and upstanding person would be able make their points and arguments without the need to lie or deceive others to get their vote.
After all, if you have to lie to make your argument work, then you don’t have a very strong case do you.
This all demonstrates very graphically that those in public service now are virtually all those that only have a theoretical grasp of business, life, and reality, unlike the older times when MP’s were drawn from Unions, landowners, and businesses.
Without being grovelling Paul, this is why you are so good as a commentator, you came up through the FBU, you have the T shirt and the DVD. Been there, done it. The only one on the left whose opinion I respect and admire.
Voters will love this as we all know politicians lie all the time, particularly those in government and those in the left. However, you don’t need to be a cynic to know which way prosecutions will run. Just ask Lucy Connolly if her thoughts.
"The latest authoritarian move comes in the form of a proposal by the Labour government in Wales to make it a criminal offence for a politician to ‘lie’ during an election campaign"
Let's try to imagine the best case scenario for such a law. The offence would be to deliberately make a false or misleading statement whilst engaging in campaigning for a candidate during an election. I.e. you'd need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had deliberately made the false or misleading statement.
Showing the statement was false or misleading would not be sufficient to convict, as you'd need to also demonstrate that the accused knew that the statement was false or misleading at the time they said it, in order to show intent.
This might mean that those cases that get to court don't often result in conviction as proving the intent may be tricky. However, the prospect of being investigated and having to defend oneself in court would mean candidates and campaigners would be wary of saying anything that their opponents could jump on as a potential lie and would probably need a lawyer to vet everything they might want to say in their campaign.
It would create an incentive for opposing candidates / politicans to make a complaint about someone simply to tie them up in legal wrangling, using a statement they can cast doubt on as an excuse.
I share your frustration about lies spin , dark arts etc and while I hold them all in utter utter contempt, we must trust the wisdom of the electorate, for me this is purely about "the process being the punishment " as opposed to an actual conviction. Once a politician is accused/ investigated it end their opportunity to present their cass to the people, it will put of people from running , it will favor those with established links connections (all animals are equal etc ) and not to add an ambitious activist cps prosecutor..
Politics is no longer an ideology debate , its a smear mud sling dark arts match.
"None of the above because they are all lying *insert expletives * " on the ballot paper could be the way forward ! (I do however flip flop on making voting mandatory under this , free will v my desire to see ",none of the above " win just one seat .
( tho am willing to compromise to "none of the above " )
Have a great week Paul and other readers 😊
Ps re ideology comment i refer to Tony Benn quote , sign post!!!! Sign post , then they wouldn't need to spin, lie etc
I've had my disagreements with one or two of your articles recently, Paul, but I couldn't be more behind you on this one. What passes for discourse in this country at the moment is shameful, and will inevitably lead to serious conflict in due course.
It beggars belief that this proposal could seriously take hold when even the Speaker of ‘The Mother or Parliaments’ routinely lets Ministers lie, dissemble and distort the truth for a cheap dig at the opposition.
They should be careful what they wish for, as any half-decent AI system could call them out in realtime then we’d be left with constant interruptions during speeches, hustings, door-to-door campaigning, TV interviews and Parliament itself.
I can see many voters thinking this is a good idea as they are fed up with politicians breaking their electioneering promises. It will be essential, therefore, that sensible and analytical commentators like yourself endeavour to ensure that this Orwellian proposal is exhaustively discussed in the media.
Just another thought - does the current Labour front bench really want to be held to account in this way?
I was thinking that. Would any of them pass this test?
On that basis Keir Starmer would be serving life. These politicians proposing this are children and need to grow up.
Agree entirely Paul. The battle that is raging is not Right vs Left, but Authoritarianism vs liberal democracy
A family member has told me that because I voted "Leave" I shouldn't ever be allowed to vote again. She is a lefty, champagne socialist, former senior home office official, who had to give up her holiday villa in France because of Brexit. My reason for voting "Leave" was that all immigrants should be treated equally. She disagreed.
Remainer family and friends of mine have either stopped speaking to me or avoid politics since the Referendum.
Sorry to hear that happened in your family.
My experience was very different. Personally, I voted leave myself and my family/ friends/work colleagues broke fairly evenly on the subject either way.
The remain voters among them were disappointed for sure, which is fair enough, nobody likes to lose. But none of us seriously fell out over it to that extent.
To take disappointment to the extreme of stopping talking altogether is way extreme.
And it's nearly 10 years ago now!
The rancour over the EU referendum is actually what turned Prof Matt Goodwin from being a typical lefty academic into what he is today. Standing as a Reform UK candidate! He voted Remain, but understood that in a democracy, the majority wins. He became concerned that some Remainers kept insisting that 52% of voters were "wrong" and that for 10 years would not left it go.
Given that we already have laws by which victims of untruthful smears, slanders or libels can seek redress, the proposals you refer to are totally unnecessary.
Perhaps a better use of their time might be to seek ways to make the existing libel laws accessible to those on lower or medium incomes, so that these laws would hopefully no longer be the preserve of the very rich.
You are completely right that politicians routinely 'spin' the truth so that it better suits their respective agendas, but there is no law that can counter-act that, what we need is a vigorous public debate and a culture which encourages people to speak up, to challenge those in power and in authority.
Dreaming up new laws in the way referred here is ridiculous.
Agreed. They dream up new, authoritarian laws because they cannot think of laws to actually ensure better governance of the country.
Excellent article Paul. Very informative and very worrying. One would imagine Welsh Labour and Labour UK would have their Fabian mate Judges to arbiter what constitutes a lie?
Superb analysis of the Remainer views on Brexit voters - how insulting to assume that the only reason those of us voted for Brexit was because we were duped by advertising! No - sovereignty was key for many of us. I am really concerned about the increasing authoritarian and anti democratic manoeuvring of those currently in power - ie the very people who call centre right wing parties (and by implication their supporters and voters) “fascist” or Nazi” are acting in the manner they purport to despise.
It is like that nonsense about ‘cake’ - activists will pore over every word, find a misstep and then howl until their enemy is rubbed out.
Well Starmer and Reeves would be in chokey for a long stretch.
Hi Paul
This is very much akin to campaigns to suppress so-called 'disinformation' and 'misinformation'. In other words, it is a move to protect mainstream and official lies from being contradicted by opinions and evidence against them.
Great article as usual Paul.
Sadly, I feel that underlying all this has to be the calibre of the people we now have in politics.
A decent, honest and upstanding person would be able make their points and arguments without the need to lie or deceive others to get their vote.
After all, if you have to lie to make your argument work, then you don’t have a very strong case do you.
This all demonstrates very graphically that those in public service now are virtually all those that only have a theoretical grasp of business, life, and reality, unlike the older times when MP’s were drawn from Unions, landowners, and businesses.
Without being grovelling Paul, this is why you are so good as a commentator, you came up through the FBU, you have the T shirt and the DVD. Been there, done it. The only one on the left whose opinion I respect and admire.
Voters will love this as we all know politicians lie all the time, particularly those in government and those in the left. However, you don’t need to be a cynic to know which way prosecutions will run. Just ask Lucy Connolly if her thoughts.
"The latest authoritarian move comes in the form of a proposal by the Labour government in Wales to make it a criminal offence for a politician to ‘lie’ during an election campaign"
Let's try to imagine the best case scenario for such a law. The offence would be to deliberately make a false or misleading statement whilst engaging in campaigning for a candidate during an election. I.e. you'd need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had deliberately made the false or misleading statement.
Showing the statement was false or misleading would not be sufficient to convict, as you'd need to also demonstrate that the accused knew that the statement was false or misleading at the time they said it, in order to show intent.
This might mean that those cases that get to court don't often result in conviction as proving the intent may be tricky. However, the prospect of being investigated and having to defend oneself in court would mean candidates and campaigners would be wary of saying anything that their opponents could jump on as a potential lie and would probably need a lawyer to vet everything they might want to say in their campaign.
It would create an incentive for opposing candidates / politicans to make a complaint about someone simply to tie them up in legal wrangling, using a statement they can cast doubt on as an excuse.
Hi Paul 👋
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Great piece 👍
I share your frustration about lies spin , dark arts etc and while I hold them all in utter utter contempt, we must trust the wisdom of the electorate, for me this is purely about "the process being the punishment " as opposed to an actual conviction. Once a politician is accused/ investigated it end their opportunity to present their cass to the people, it will put of people from running , it will favor those with established links connections (all animals are equal etc ) and not to add an ambitious activist cps prosecutor..
Politics is no longer an ideology debate , its a smear mud sling dark arts match.
"None of the above because they are all lying *insert expletives * " on the ballot paper could be the way forward ! (I do however flip flop on making voting mandatory under this , free will v my desire to see ",none of the above " win just one seat .
( tho am willing to compromise to "none of the above " )
Have a great week Paul and other readers 😊
Ps re ideology comment i refer to Tony Benn quote , sign post!!!! Sign post , then they wouldn't need to spin, lie etc
I've had my disagreements with one or two of your articles recently, Paul, but I couldn't be more behind you on this one. What passes for discourse in this country at the moment is shameful, and will inevitably lead to serious conflict in due course.