Comments on: Ministry of Truth? Why is this lying liar lying to us? http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/ "crass, boorish and more a bruiser than blogger" - Alex Wilcock Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:36:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: James Graham http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-95090 James Graham Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:14:38 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-95090 No. But it ought to be. No. But it ought to be.

]]> By: fred http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-95081 fred Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:40:51 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-95081 Cynical??? You need to read some of your own blog to remind yourself about the politicians you are now claiming to defend. Oh and just for the record, is it Liberal Democrat policy to come across as patronising and boorish to people who will never come round to their way of thinking? Cynical??? You need to read some of your own blog to remind yourself about the politicians you are now claiming to defend.

Oh and just for the record, is it Liberal Democrat policy to come across as patronising and boorish to people who will never come round to their way of thinking?

]]> By: James Graham http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94980 James Graham Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:32:37 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94980 You have a very cynical view about politicians which I fear bears only a tagential relationship to reality. Nothing I say of course will convince you otherwise. In short, you are precisely the target audience for that dreadful film. You have a very cynical view about politicians which I fear bears only a tagential relationship to reality. Nothing I say of course will convince you otherwise.

In short, you are precisely the target audience for that dreadful film.

]]> By: fred http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94978 fred Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:47:33 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94978 Estate agents and lawyers jobs require them to part with as much of their clients as money as they can legally get away with. Money should not be politicians' motivation - their job is to improve the status quo - not perpetuate it or make it worse. Unfortunately, MPs seem to regard the quantity of new laws as a metric of their success. Never mind the quality or whether the laws are enforceable - just carry on churning them out ad nauseum until you have the situation where ordinary people are breaking the law on a daily basis. Which results in a complete lack of respect for the law, particularly by young people but increasingly by the older generation who see MPs as control freaks just wanting to stop things people have enjoyed doing for years without restrictions. And the MPs wonder why they're despised? Or do they just not care? Estate agents and lawyers jobs require them to part with as much of their clients as money as they can legally get away with. Money should not be politicians’ motivation - their job is to improve the status quo - not perpetuate it or make it worse.
Unfortunately, MPs seem to regard the quantity of new laws as a metric of their success. Never mind the quality or whether the laws are enforceable - just carry on churning them out ad nauseum until you have the situation where ordinary people are breaking the law on a daily basis. Which results in a complete lack of respect for the law, particularly by young people but increasingly by the older generation who see MPs as control freaks just wanting to stop things people have enjoyed doing for years without restrictions. And the MPs wonder why they’re despised? Or do they just not care?

]]> By: James Graham http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94960 James Graham Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:04:24 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94960 Estate agents and lawyers are both regulated professions and it is illegal for them to lie. Yet as you say, they are unloved and untrusted by the public. I could say the same about stockbrokers and market traders, neither of whom are regarded by the public in high esteem. The issue is not whether it is right or wrong to lie, but how you can deal with lies in an effective manner. The Misrepresentation of the People Act would not do this. Estate agents and lawyers are both regulated professions and it is illegal for them to lie. Yet as you say, they are unloved and untrusted by the public. I could say the same about stockbrokers and market traders, neither of whom are regarded by the public in high esteem.

The issue is not whether it is right or wrong to lie, but how you can deal with lies in an effective manner. The Misrepresentation of the People Act would not do this.

]]> By: Fred http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94955 Fred Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:23:32 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94955 I think it is perverse that you argue so viciously against something that ordinary honest people would expect from public servants. Regardless of the fact that every new law in this country seems designed to line lawyers pockets with gold, this proposed legislation is, by all decent standards, common sense. Which is why it will probably fail. As was stated by virtually all interviewees in the BBC program, democracy is built on trust. Most people in the UK don't trust the politicians, therefore democracy itself is at stake. Public "servants" really need to be reminded of the definition of the word servant and change their behaviour accordingly. Currently, it seems to the public that most, if not all MP's interests are, in this order: 1. Themselves (pay, career etc) 2. Their party (what the whips demand) 3. The country 4. Their constituents Until this reality is reversed, and power is divested to the people to make positive changes in the interests of society, the reputation of MPs will remain on a par with estate agents, lawyers and other xxx (insert appropriate adjective). I think it is perverse that you argue so viciously against something that ordinary honest people would expect from public servants. Regardless of the fact that every new law in this country seems designed to line lawyers pockets with gold, this proposed legislation is, by all decent standards, common sense. Which is why it will probably fail.
As was stated by virtually all interviewees in the BBC program, democracy is built on trust. Most people in the UK don’t trust the politicians, therefore democracy itself is at stake.
Public “servants” really need to be reminded of the definition of the word servant and change their behaviour accordingly.
Currently, it seems to the public that most, if not all MP’s interests are, in this order:
1. Themselves (pay, career etc)
2. Their party (what the whips demand)
3. The country
4. Their constituents
Until this reality is reversed, and power is divested to the people to make positive changes in the interests of society, the reputation of MPs will remain on a par with estate agents, lawyers and other xxx (insert appropriate adjective).

]]> By: James Graham http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94640 James Graham Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:29:01 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94640 I'm open to the idea of Parliamentary privilege being open to scrutiny in that way, but not on it being on a legal footing. There needs to be a cultural shift in the attitude of Parliamentarians, but that won't be achieved by passing a law (indeed, looking at my Standards Board example, it rather suggests it would make things worse). You clearly have a very narrow, pedantic definition of the word 'truth'. Presumably you are one of those people currently denouncing Al Gore as a liar due to the recent court case ruling that there are nine 'inaccuracies' in An Inconvenient Truth (despite also ruling that it was 'broadly accurate'). It is very comforting to be able to tell yourself that if someone asserts that X, Y and Z are true, and X can be shown not to be so, that Y and Z must also be false, but it is delusional. I’m open to the idea of Parliamentary privilege being open to scrutiny in that way, but not on it being on a legal footing. There needs to be a cultural shift in the attitude of Parliamentarians, but that won’t be achieved by passing a law (indeed, looking at my Standards Board example, it rather suggests it would make things worse).

You clearly have a very narrow, pedantic definition of the word ‘truth’. Presumably you are one of those people currently denouncing Al Gore as a liar due to the recent court case ruling that there are nine ‘inaccuracies’ in An Inconvenient Truth (despite also ruling that it was ‘broadly accurate’). It is very comforting to be able to tell yourself that if someone asserts that X, Y and Z are true, and X can be shown not to be so, that Y and Z must also be false, but it is delusional.

]]> By: Jonathan Gornall http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94529 Jonathan Gornall Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:14:43 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94529 Thanks for your reply. There are some who would argue - and I am one of them - that Parliamentary Privilege is such a powerful tool that it is vital that it is not abused, let alone used as "leeway" to allow an MP to lie. If an MP is not confident that what he is saying is the truth - especially when what he is saying is designed to destroy an individual's reputation - then she or she should not say it. If such lies are deemed necessary to pursue some "greater truth", then I would suggest that the very validity of that "truth" is brought into question. I think it is absolutely right that if an MP is criticising individuals in extreme terms that they should be prepared to have what they have said examined in close detail. Making an honest mistake is, of course, one thing, but if it can be shown that an MP has deliberately set out to deceive members and lie to the House they should be subject to disciplinary proceedings. I believe the facility exists already for an MP to be suspended for abuse of privilege. The problem is that the Commissioner for Standards seems to be more interested in whether MPs have acted out of financial self-interest than whether or not they have deceived Parliament, perhaps in pursuit of a personal agenda. The consequences of boths acts can be extremely serious, both for democracy and for the maligned individuals concerned, and should be treated equally seriously. An MP who abuses Parliamentary privilege by lying to the House is an absolute disgrace who has let down everyone who has voted for him. He undermines the very credibility of Parliament and should be treated accordingly by the Commons authorities and, if he has one, by his party. Truth is not a hat, to be put on or off at will. Thanks for your reply. There are some who would argue - and I am one of them - that Parliamentary Privilege is such a powerful tool that it is vital that it is not abused, let alone used as “leeway” to allow an MP to lie.

If an MP is not confident that what he is saying is the truth - especially when what he is saying is designed to destroy an individual’s reputation - then she or she should not say it. If such lies are deemed necessary to pursue some “greater truth”, then I would suggest that the very validity of that “truth” is brought into question.

I think it is absolutely right that if an MP is criticising individuals in extreme terms that they should be prepared to have what they have said examined in close detail. Making an honest mistake is, of course, one thing, but if it can be shown that an MP has deliberately set out to deceive members and lie to the House they should be subject to disciplinary proceedings. I believe the facility exists already for an MP to be suspended for abuse of privilege. The problem is that the Commissioner for Standards seems to be more interested in whether MPs have acted out of financial self-interest than whether or not they have deceived Parliament, perhaps in pursuit of a personal agenda. The consequences of boths acts can be extremely serious, both for democracy and for the maligned individuals concerned, and should be treated equally seriously.

An MP who abuses Parliamentary privilege by lying to the House is an absolute disgrace who has let down everyone who has voted for him. He undermines the very credibility of Parliament and should be treated accordingly by the Commons authorities and, if he has one, by his party. Truth is not a hat, to be put on or off at will.

]]> By: James Graham http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94446 James Graham Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:54:06 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94446 I'm not suggesting he's lied whatsoever. My point is that if he did not have Parliamentary Privilege, he would have to be looking over his shoulder every 30 seconds as the people he was criticising would go through everything he has said and written with a fine tooth comb. And in the course of making these allegations, there is indeed a danger he may make mistakes or tell untruths. Parliamentarians shouldn't be subjected to a legal minefield every time they do, or most of them won't risk it. If you want a system that can get to a greater truth, you have to allow a little leeway. The Misrepresentation of the People <s>Act</s> Bill doesn't allow for that; it is a license to enrich lawyers at the expense of the truth. I’m not suggesting he’s lied whatsoever. My point is that if he did not have Parliamentary Privilege, he would have to be looking over his shoulder every 30 seconds as the people he was criticising would go through everything he has said and written with a fine tooth comb. And in the course of making these allegations, there is indeed a danger he may make mistakes or tell untruths. Parliamentarians shouldn’t be subjected to a legal minefield every time they do, or most of them won’t risk it.

If you want a system that can get to a greater truth, you have to allow a little leeway. The Misrepresentation of the People Act Bill doesn’t allow for that; it is a license to enrich lawyers at the expense of the truth.

]]> By: Jonathan Gornall http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94445 Jonathan Gornall Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:46:27 +0000 http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2007/10/09/ministry-of-truth-why-is-this-lying-liar-lying-to-us/#comment-94445 Interesting piece, but I would appreciate more clarity on one point. You say: "What’s wrong with demanding that MPs don’t lie you might ask? Well, nothing per say. But there are several strong reasons for having Parliamentary privilege. It allows John Hemming to wage his crusade against CAFCASS for example..." This appears to suggest that you consider John Hemming to have lied in his campaign (you say "against CAFCASS", but actually it is wider than that - he has been campaigning against the entire adoption system and other elements of social services and child protection). If so, could you give examples of where you believe he has lied? Interesting piece, but I would appreciate more clarity on one point. You say: “What’s wrong with demanding that MPs don’t lie you might ask? Well, nothing per say. But there are several strong reasons for having Parliamentary privilege. It allows John Hemming to wage his crusade against CAFCASS for example…”

This appears to suggest that you consider John Hemming to have lied in his campaign (you say “against CAFCASS”, but actually it is wider than that - he has been campaigning against the entire adoption system and other elements of social services and child protection).

If so, could you give examples of where you believe he has lied?

]]>