I think it’s a good idea but you would pretty much have to put all politicians in the dock. Either that or they will become even more adept at hiding their lies behind spin.

This is such a ridiculous idea. It is utterly unenforcable. How the hell are you supposed to prove anything?

In answer to the question, I sure hope so.

I agree with Nick on this one; it’s one of those ideas that sounds great until you actually think about the practical reality. It’s perpetuation as a meme in this manner appears to be more of publicity stunt/appeal for celebrity, than an actual serious mechanism for bringing about change. How, indeed, as Nick says, go about proving deliberate deception? Who has the right to bring legal action? If a falsehood is uttered with the best of intentions, what happens then? Can MPs then only discuss or speak when they know what they are saying is 100% irrefutable truth? Would it lead to a glut of litigation by the daily mail, or any other media outlet for that matter? Will corporations, or anyone else for that matter, use it as a lever over politicians? Will MPs have any time left to actually serve their constituents and the country?

What are you guys talking about? How do we prove deception in other walks of life, i.e, financial deception, or advertising deception?

Can’t we just use the methods we ALREADY USE to prove dishonesty?

Leon and Nick… actually we prove dishonesty/lies on a daily basis through the courts and numerous existing statutes that regulate everybody from estate agents to company directors.

Exactly my point Mr.Symons – what is different here?

OK, what counts as dishonesty? Politicians promise things they subsequently can’t deliver all the time? Are they deliberately being dishonest when they make a promise that becomes impractical, even if made with the best of intentions?

We prove fraudulent behaviour, that’s not the same as proving lying. There are actions and consequences that are tangible and inexplicable, this is not often the case with “deception”.

Also, if we already have the ability to prosecute deceptive behaviour/fraud, then why not use those measures we already have to seek redress against MPs? Why invent a whole new peice of legislation which may be unnecessary?

Adam, you kinda prove my point! It’s a fatuous and unnecessary legislation programmed to provide a specific “pressure group” with publicity.

explicable, not inexplicable, soz

Professor, can you give me, say, the top 10 prosecutions you would like to bring under this law, if it existed.

Leon, my point is that, legislation already exists in all walks of life EXCEPT POLITICS. My point is that if we can make it illegal for firms to lie, why can we NOT make it illegal for people with MORE power to lie???

Pleased to see an outbreak of common sense on this thread. “The Professor” (why can’t we have an actual name for this champion of transparency and accountability?) doesn’t actually reflect on the fact that similar ideas were rejected by Parliament this week or that we do have a similar set of statutory requirements in local government, as administered by the Standards Board, and they have been an unmitigated disaster.

When I watched the Ministry of Truth on BBC2 last year, the programme didn’t address any of the valid concerns expressed about their proposals – merely portraying anyone who disagreed with them as venal and self-serving. Maybe the DVD will be more balanced, but given the fact that they no longer even have to contend with the light touch of the BBC’s impartiality guidelines, I somehow doubt it.

Adam, and once again fraudulent behaviour is illegal. When individuals/firms are fraudulent there is usually (though admittedly not always) a tengible consequence, ie investors who’ve lost their money, an obvious breech of contract, etc. This isn’t the case with political deception, the effects are less tangible (if at all tangible) and it is difficult to prove the intent to deceive without any tangible consequence, I’m fairly certain we would see a glut of spurious legal actions as a result, with the intent of changing the representative or attacking an individual MP for personal/[political ends. If we are very specific, ie referring to expenses then legislation already exists to prosecute for fraudulent claims.

Also, regulation is not the same as legislation. MPs are already regulated, but perhaps this should be more independant

ROFL at the idea that it is illegal for estate agents or company directors to lie and that they now not do so. Do you live on the same planet as the rest of us?!

If it’s simply a case of applying the same rules to elected representatives as to anyone else, why not simply propose the Prohibition of Deception Bill and make it illegal for ANYONE to lie. Simple. And great news for lawyers…

Nick,

Bloody great news for lawyers. Seriously bad news for Friday nights “working late”, “forgetting” to do the washing up, etc.

Leon, Nick – you may wanna check out the Fraud Act 2006. Fraud used to be making a material gain or inflicting a material loss via deception. 2006 saw legislation where no loss or gain need to have actually occurred, the new act requires only the “intent” to inflict a loss or make a gain via deception.

Adam, yes that is correct. Once again, there remains a tangible aspect that is absent in most political deception, an obvious motive, the intent to receive material gain or to renege on an agreement, it is something you can catch in the process of occuring. However, I would be interested to know the difference in conviction rates between the 2 pieces of legislation, in terms of actions brought to convictions achieved ; this is all provided, of course, that we are talking about the same thing: what we believe to be lies represented as “political spin” are deceptions rather than failed promises.

Leon, the point of having a law in place is that you find a natural balance – the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards only receives 120 complaints each year. The law against selling peerages has been invoked hardly ever since it’s introduction in 1925. Does that mean there haven’t been abuses ? Does that mean no-one could be bothered to go through the legal process or does that mean the law’s been incredibly effective at preventing abuses ? You’ll never know, but a balance of some sort has been achieved. Unless you give the public an instrument of redress (and don’t tell me it’s a general election) you’ll never find a balance between behaviour and legislation.

This Potential legislation sounds interesting, how many Politicians will think twice before intentionaly decieving the publics and there “right honrable friend’s ?” There every word would be under extreme scrutiny if decorated with the stentched of deception.

However i do see the negetive side to this bill there will be loop holes allowing deception to be used in the bailing out from the charges of deception. It is however important to remember the political system that Britain finds herself, it is one that holds evolutionary legislative attributes! This specific bill may be the start of a very succesful piece of Parliamentry self-scruitnising lesgislation.

I do not think that MP Adam Price believes this Bill will be route out all Political deception, it will certainly be a obstruction to a practice which should never be tolerated in Westminster. (excluding sensetive matters of national security ofcourse.)
Let the war against political deception begin!

Edit : “Stenched” for “Stench”

Politicians rarely ever lie outright – look at Iraq, all it takes is for someone to say “I never knowingly misled the entire country” and they get off for what was essentially telling people something that wasn’t true.

@18 Rich,

I agree with everything you say in that post. I don’t agree with an anti-deception act. Part of the reasoning is that it does nothing to strike a balance. It is unworkable and subject to problems that I’ve said.

leon please elaborate further on your reasoning regarding the issue of striking a balance.

@23.

I think by its very nature, it will be difficult to prove and enforce. I think you may well end up with private litigation and perhaps nuiscence cases brought by tabloid newspapers. I think innocent MPs may have their careers tainted by the above. That’s why I think it won’t strike a balance. I thought I’d said most of that in earlier posts. My preferred balance would be using existing national/international law, the ballot box and constitutional reform.

I also can’t spell nuisance (??help??)

#21

Quite. Actually politicians are less likely to tell outright lies than people in other walks of life. If they do, as there is more focus on them, they are more likely to be caught out and the consequences are more likely to be severe. And it is impossible to draw a line between putting your own spin on something (which is legitimate, something that everyone does in every walk of life and something that also likely reflects diverging views on different topics) and deliberately misleading people.

Of course, when they do misrepresent or deliberately lead people astray, it is more important than when a random does it.