Should UK politicians be more honest and accountable for their actions?

Hi everyone, I found out recently that there isn't a law to prosecute politicians who knowingly deceive the public. In my mind this amounts to a fundamental gap in our constitution (UK). My concerns were further exacerbated by the Elizabeth Filkin affair, in which she was hounded out of her position as Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards after she rubbed up a few important parliamentary figures the wrong way with her investigations. Thoughts?
Richard Lawson
27 September 2007 - 9:54pm
There should be a law to prosecute politicians for deceiving the public. But how would we know they were lying, as opposed to spinning?
Iron Mike
3 October 2007 - 8:25pm

Quote:
 But how would we know they were lying, as opposed to spinning?

Good point. 

But how do you know its a lie as opposed to a mere mistake?  The US, along with the UK, France, Germany and Russia all were mistaken about WMD in Iraq, but GWB is branded by many of those incapable of critical thinking, as a liar.  Hmmm?  Perhaps we should also prosecute mistakes.

How about another law against those who lie about our politicians?  Why should free speech include lies to advance an opposition political agenda? Do you really want to ski this slippery slope?

chris9234
3 October 2007 - 8:45pm
['GWB is branded by many of those incapable of critical thinking, as a liar'] 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' State of the Union by President George Bush Mike, The accusation that George Bush is a liar is based on the language that he used in that single sentence above, and pretty much proves that he was lying. Don't worry, I wouldn't expect you to understand, there's thinking involved.
Iron Mike
3 October 2007 - 11:14pm

Doesn't take much thinking to find out the facts Chris.  Since you want to avoid straining your intellect too much, I'll do the thinking for you.

Quote:

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

  • A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
  • A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
  • Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger. 
  • Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that  US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether  Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

But, then again...you are exactly the reason why such laws would never work.  You don't know the difference between lies and mistakes.  You've never been in a position of authority when lives where at stake and you had to take the best available information and decide a course of action.  You might be more forgiving in your assessments of people's actions and motives.

Upon further consideration, I came to the conclusion that since your allegation about GWB lying was so easily disproven, you clearly knew it was a lie when you offered it. You Sir are a liar and should be prosecuted as such! Go ahead prove you were NOT lying, that you were merely mistaken. Hmmm...But then again, I can't prove what you REALLY knew at the time of the statement...can I? There's a dilemma. For the same reason you cannot prove GWB lied.
chris9234
5 October 2007 - 12:21am

Mikey,

Is that the best you have? Weak, really weak, but as I said, there is thinking involved so I wasn't expecting much from you in the first place.

Now, am I a liar, I suppose you could say I've lied from time to time, probably more often than I'm willing to admit if I'm being honest, but then again my lies are what you would probably classify as little white lies, you know - 'yes dear, that dress looks lovely' and stuff along those lines.

Mr. Bush, however, he blatantely lies to his own people in order to minipulate them into laying waste to another country and its people - now that lie is on a completely different level, wouldn't you say? Oh yea, you wouldn't, would you? I almost forgot your the local Od Bush apoligist, right?

chris9234
5 October 2007 - 12:35am
  

There are several places on the web where you can find information on factive verbs, in fact if you do a search on Google you will find many referencing your hero Bush, and those sixteen words. I, however, have chosen to reference Steven Pinker and his book The Stuff of Thought

"'Learn is what linguists call a factive verb: it entails that the belief attributed to the subject is true."  

“factive verbs entail something a speaker assumes to be indisputably true, not just something in which he or she has high confidence in”

 

“When Bush said that the British government had learned’ that Saddam had sought uranium, he was committing himself to the proposition that the uranium seeking actually took place, not that the British government believed it did.”

 

Now Mikey, we know for a fact that Bush was informed by his people that the British information was weak, and yet he still chose to use a word which conveyed certainty in his statement.

 

That is what you call lying, plain and simple.

owly
5 October 2007 - 7:01pm
It has long been a convention that a politican may not mislead or lie to the House of Commons. If he makes a mistake he must correct that mistake at the earliest opportunity. I think it is very regretable that this simple standard has of late slipped. 
As to the point made regarding President Bush one has to say that the President did not lie in the statement he made. Intelligence reports - those that land on the Presidents desk and on the desk of the Prime Minister - are by their very nature composites and distillations from many different sources. The use of the word 'learned' would not have been incorrect in relation to the report upon which the President was drawing. 
chris9234
5 October 2007 - 7:19pm
['The use of the word 'learned' would not have been incorrect in relation to the report upon which the President was drawing. '] Owly, The 'report' that the president was referencing was disputed by those of his own administration and those in American intelligence, we know this, we also know that he was briefed on those concerns and yet he still chose to use the word 'learned', as opposed to 'the British governments thinks, suspects, believes, etc. This implies he knowingly used a statement in order to mislead the American public, in essence he lied to them, he lied to us, he is a liar. I'm sorry if this troubles you, but you should try to get over it, perhaps you and Mike can start a George Bush is a liar rehab clinic.
L.W.
9 October 2007 - 7:18am
Name one politician who wouldn't be prosecuted. After all they lie because really the people want them to. Behind each lie of a politician there is a large crowd of people who elaborated it!
chris9234
9 October 2007 - 1:38pm

L.W.,

I'm not sure if you are right, but if you are, those are damning statements about the American populace.

Attacking and destroying a sovereign nation based on lying, manipulating, and deceiving one peoples is one thing. Attacking and destroying a sovereign nation based on a misplaced thirst for revenge by those same people, is quite another.

Anthony Barnett
9 October 2007 - 2:30pm
This is very interesting. There is a good account of the scandal over Elizabeth Filkin in Peter Oborne's new book, The Triumph of the Political Class. One shift here if from politicians in Britain being obliged not to mislead the Commons and today not "knowingly" misleading it - quite a get-out clause! After all, you are not innocent if you do not "knowingly" break the law. My feeling is quite different from the direction of this discussion. It is a bit absurd to make lies illegal. They are clearly wrong but making laws about everything creates jobs for lawyers. The issue is this: How can we have a truthful politics? This demands a truthful press and media as well as truthful politicians. it might even call for truthful citizens. For example, what about being truthful about risks and about screw-ups? How about being truthful about difficulties when this does not sell papers or make a 'good story'? We also want to avoid just 'blaming them'. Anyway, these are just first thoughts, and we will link to this from OurKingdom Anthony
owly
13 October 2007 - 4:45pm
Anthony, My understanding is that it has always been the case that a member of either the House of Commons or Lords must not 'knowingly' mislead the house, and if he or she makes a statement in the House which is factually incorrect he or she is obliged to amend what was said in the house. It is a matter of honour to do so. What a politican says in a newspaper or a television interview is neither here nor there, but what he or she says in the House must be the truth. Perhaps if the media were more interested in reporting the business of Parliament, and Ministers were more correct in making any anouncements in Parliament, politics in general would be far more healthy.
L.W.
9 October 2007 - 4:28pm

Chris, I am not talking only about the politicians in the USA. It's about all of them around the globe.

Politics are not about truth and ideals. They are about people versus people, and  in fact people create the politics. People choose what to believe, they chose what is just and what is not. A lie for one is the truth for another depending on which factors people chose to take in consideration and depending on the society where that decision making takes place.

 A handful of politicians do not create our environment. We create it our selves with our religion, ideals, or ambitions. The politicians just take that environment and exploit it's potential and they often say lies and do so in order to further the agenda of one group over the agenda of another.

Lets take the hot one. WMD.

Some will say you didn't find them so you lied about them. Others will say just because you didn't find them doesn't mean they weren't there. Others will say we were misled by false intelligence. If you look at it all three are reasonable possibilities. So people chose what to believe based on what they want. So yes I am most certain that a large group of people enables a lie to become the truth or a truth to become a lie, not only in the States, but every place, every country.

 

The real politicians are people whose names you never hear about...
abdulksaida
12 October 2007 - 12:15pm
Dear W.L yes i agree of what u said about politician and how now each person manipulate the lie to become truth and vice virsa
owly
13 October 2007 - 4:37pm
LW makes an interesting and valid points. On WMD there is much heat and very little light on the issue. The basic facts are in a way simple. We knew Saddam had WMD when the UN inspectors left in 1998. If he had them in 1998 he must still of had them in 2002, and Blix in his reports to the UNSC gave a long list of unaccounted for material. Thus when both the President and the Prime Minister stated that 'Saddam still pocessed WMD' they told a truth, not a lie. It was the truth as they both knew it to be at the time. Peversely it would have been a lie if they had both said 'Saddam has no WMD', because we all knew in 1998 he still had the stuff, thus it is reasonable to assume he still had it in 2002. Also it is asserted that the President lied about Saddams attempt to obtain uranium. In the Butler report he said this -: "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded." Again, the President did not lie. He merely said something with which many of you disagree. Not the samething.
Anthony Barnett
12 October 2007 - 11:36am
I have just blogged about this forum and the TV film on this issue in OurKingdom http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2007/10/12/lies-truth-and-politicians/ comments welcome there as well Anthony

Post new comment

  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <h2> <h3> <div> <span> <blockquote> <!--break--> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr> <table> <td> <tr> <img> <map>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options