Why do MPs lie so blatantly on TV?

Thanks for that Dickens 🤣🤣🤣

Doodledog

No, people can't be accused of lying, but they can be charged with misleading the house. I suppose it is to stop malicious allegations, and turning the place into more of a bear pit than it is already.

Apparently, Disraeli, on being instructed to withdraw his allegation that half the cabinet were knaves, asserted that half the cabinet were not knaves.
😁

The truth does seem to carry far less weight.
Now you can state something blatantly untrue as your opinion, or be a politician in Scottish or any other parliament and people can’t say you’re a liar.
If they lie about one thing, is anything they say likely to be true?

There was a time when being called a liar was a terrible insult, as the idea that someone's word was their bond was important. These days it seems to carry far less weight, as the nature of truth gets more fluid. It's a great loss to democracy, IMO.

Douglas Ross used the word "lies" in the Scottish Parliament this week. The Presiding Officer had to admonish him about it, and tell him not to repeat it.

No, people can't be accused of lying, but they can be charged with misleading the house. I suppose it is to stop malicious allegations, and turning the place into more of a bear pit than it is already.

I find it extraordinary that a MP can lie in the HoC but nobody can call him a lier. Or have I got this wrong?

This is an important, but inconvenient fact for the Government, and he should have been forced to correct his misinformation.

I agree. Some things are matters of opinion (eg whether a policy has been effective or not) and others are not (eg whether figures have risen or fallen, and whether they conclude all instances). If someone states something incorrect they should be asked to repeat it with the correction, 'for the record', so 'reported crime figures have fallen, if we remove fraud from the statistics, but has risen or remained the same [insert correct statement] taken as a whole' would be more accurate. Not everything can be picked up, but the knowledge that if it can be it will be should be enough to deter at least some truth evasion and disinformation.

From the National Crime Agency website:
Fraud is the most commonly experienced crime in the UK. Fraud costs the UK many billions of pounds every year. The impact of fraud and related offences such as market abuse and counterfeiting, can be devastating, ranging from unaffordable personal losses suffered by vulnerable victims to impacting the ability of organisations to stay in business

This is an important, but inconvenient fact for the Government, and he should have been forced to correct his misinformation.

When it come to political interviews and programmes such as QT, I don't think we necessarily need abrasive interviewers, it is not about them, what we need is polite insistence that the question is answered, or correction where necessary, to lies misreported statistics. As the Tory was blathering on about a cut in reported crime, which led to laughter from the audience, the chap from NatWest bank pointed out at least twice, that these statistics do not include fraud. Fiona did not point this out. As we are aware, online fraud in particular is a serious, ever increasing problem with often devastating consequences. Many of us have been fortunate enough to not have suffered from violent crime, but there are few of us who have not been the victim of attempted fraud.

Bowie was very poor I thought. Didn’t have a single idea in his head apart from party lines. Anything that deviated from what he’d read and inwardly digested he didn’t have a clue.

After Bowie made his assertion, Fiona Bruce in the chair, and the other panellists, spent a few minutes telling him how he was wrong and why.

He didn't get away with it and its wrong to pretend he did.

MP's 'opinions' should be fact based. It's part of the job. They are responsible for determining what is best for the whole country. It just should not be done on the basis of unfounded 'opinion'.

Perhaps they’re just stating their opinions? Should we call them liars if the opinions are falsehoods, or allow it because they’re entitled to an opinion even if it’s a blatant lie?

Luckygirl3

It would be good to have background staff fact-checking behind the scenes and feeding any blatant lies to Fiona B via her earpiece - then she could call out liars like this.

This is a great idea

It would be good to have background staff fact-checking behind the scenes and feeding any blatant lies to Fiona B via her earpiece - then she could call out liars like this.

volver3

The moon is made of green cheese.

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

... you're on form volver mark 3 !

Actually, it's made of mature cheddar...

volver3

The moon is made of green cheese.

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

It's white stilton, actually, volver...

The moon is made of green cheese.

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

I love your name CatsCatsCats

MP's do all lie, thats my opinion and I'm entitled to to it.

There's a load of tosh spoken on Gransnet sometimes which I don't agree with either, but I keep a civil tongue in my head.

I wonder just how bad things would have to get before the general population is aware enough and angry enough to take to the streets demanding a complete overhaul of our out-of-date, corrupt and not-fit-for-purpose political system.

It is very difficult to rejig a constitution because there are always unintended consequences. So I learned in politics lectures at uni. The French went through quite a few different ones in the 20th C...

However, a good first step would be to introduce proportional representation so that a wider range of the electorate's views are considered in Parliament. The two party system does no-one any favours, apart from the party of government...

QuoteWhitewavemark2

" ...With something like QT, it would be not too difficult to check what is being claimed and give the chairman the correct figures that could be read out. If the panelist’s knew this was likely to happen, then I suspect the lies would decrease... "

Absolutely right. It would great if they would do that.

" I really think that there should be a countrywide push for honesty in political life.
Our politicians have never been held in such poor esteem almost entirely because of the lies and of course corruption we’ve witnessed.
Until these people are held to account our democracy can’t heal. "

And I agree 100% with every word of what you said there, too, WW2.

I wonder just how bad things would have to get before the general population is aware enough and angry enough to take to the streets demanding a complete overhaul of our out-of-date, corrupt and not-fit-for-purpose political system.

That is the problem Maizie, with so many MPs being party apparatchiks with careers hanging on their behaviour, the pool of those 'independent' MPs who have careers they can return to if they lose their seat because they weren't subservient enough to the Whips gets smaller by the election

On the other hand as WS Gilbert said in Iolanthe

When in that House M.P.’s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell ’em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull M. P.’s in close proximity,
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.

Doodledog

I saw the programme. Watching the Tory chap was a Masterclass in question avoidance, wasn't it?
Q: 'Is there a way back to politics for Boris Johnson?'

A: 'Blather, blah, Rishi, waffle, we have increased, witter on, ramble.'

Fiona B: 'That's not answering the question. Can you tell us if you think there's a way back to politics for BJ?

A: 'Well look. Dissemble, waffle, highest figures, blah, Rishi.'

It shouldn't be allowed, but I don't know how it can be stopped really. At one time, someone like Paxman would have had him by the throat, but there are very few 'determined' interviewers these days.

Haha Carpe jugulum😄