There are worse things than lying politicians
by Scoop Shachtman, 11 October 2007
Newsnight, as part of their season on democracy, presented Richard Symons arguing for a law to make lying by politicians a criminal offence.
None of the politicians seemed very keen, but none seemed able to articulate the main reason that this law would not improve democracy.
Everyday people accuse politicians of lying. It is expected as part of the make-up of a politician. Many of the accusations are partisan in nature. Take the view that Blair lied about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. It is surely beyond doubt that any poll of the public would show a majority felt Blair lied. It has become part of the narrative of the story of the war in Iraq. A given. There can be no doubt that such a lie was told. It is repeated as a truth, unchallenged, day in, day out. Yet there is no real evidence that he knowingly did so. A “lie” can be subject to great debate.
Indeed, even without a criminal offence for lying there have been attempts to impeach Blair over this issue. These attempts attracted cross-party support from the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, the usual suspects, and the SNP. And it was the SNP in their pursuit of Lord Levy in the “cash for peerages” affair that showed the clearest example of how a criminal offence in the hands of political partisans could led to vexatious claims.
Such a law would paralyse politics. Instead of a battle of ideas, such as it is these days, we would have a battle between MPs, and others, attempting to catch a politician in a lie. Elected politicians would be investigated by unelected Police acting on the suspicions of other individuals with their own undisclosed motivations. The resultant climate would put politicians in a untenable position, and lead to the most anodyne of political cultures. A parallel can also be drawn with the disgraceful behaviour of the West Midlands Police, also covered in Newsnight, who attempted to “police” the journalists of Channel 4 after their documentary Undercover Mosque. Who wishes to place the two of the constituent parts of democracy, journalism and parliament, under such restrictions, wielded by unelected public servants subject to the whims of the loudest voices?
Those that argue for such a law, are arguing for the destruction of the very thing they are attempting to save.
Thursday 11 October 2007 at 0:31
“A “lie” can be subject to great debate.”
And is therefore very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt thus, guess what? Leaving the accused unconvicted.
It’d be nice to use such a law against, say, the filthy snobs who signed up to the Nu-Lab manifesto with it’s express commitment to purely partial smoking restrictions and then exercised their “consciences” in a gadarene stampede towards total prohibition in public places though.
A law against barefaced lying by our representatives, elected on the basis of an agreed manifesto, is hardly the worst thing imaginable and, if circumstances had changed sufficiently post election to render some commitments untenable I think juries would take that into account.
People, they ain’t savages y’know
Thursday 11 October 2007 at 1:03
Scoop - you are spot on. There already exists something called the standards and privileges committee. Even a manifesto ought to be subject to change if the national interest so allows. More frequent elections perhaps (let’s go back to triennial parliaments), but it is difficult enough to get MPs to speak clearly at the best of times, without encouraging them to indulge in more obfuscation.
What is happening with that absurd OFCOM investigation? Do you know who is on the panel, and if a report will be released?
Thursday 11 October 2007 at 8:02
Actually, they are.
Thursday 11 October 2007 at 9:15
They are?
And they give this ravening, mindless rabble a vote?
How perverse.
Thursday 11 October 2007 at 10:38
Scratch, you are confusing political unbalanced obsessives with the general electorate.
If lying was made a criminal offence it would be open to abuse by such obsessives (from both the left and right) with their minority obsessions, to the detriment of the wider electorate.
While I am not one of those who feels that every law passed is a step towards a Police state, such a law would put unelected officials above the sovereign parliament (which was elected by the people). There are already adequate mechanisms for controlling such behaviour by MPs, and the electorate have the ultimate power to prevent their re-election.
It is not the role of the Police to investigate political disagreements over what the truth is. That area should be open to free public debate in a open society. A society in which the state sets limits about such discussions (as Symons’ bill does) is no longer a free society.
Friday 12 October 2007 at 0:22
Don’t sweat political nutters or the filth.
They can do what they want, in the extremely unlikely event such a law was passed the final say would belong to a jury not obsessives, the plod, media twats or the Cocklecarrot vermin infesting the bench.
Personally, I’d like to see our representatives rendered more accountable to the polity than the present situation where 75% of the dirty swine are, for perfectly understandable reasons given the available options, more accountable to the party’s reselection board than they are to the electorate.