The petition to abolish politics

Make it a criminal offence to knowingly mislead the public to achieve electoral gain.

What in buggery does anyone think politics is other than lying to the public for electoral gain?

68 thoughts on “The petition to abolish politics”

  1. Ah, but thats the classic Leftist principle – they of course will be in charge of deciding who has ‘knowingly mislead’ the public via the criminal justice system, which like all State run systems is infested with Leftists. So the Right would have their pronouncements scrutinised with microscopes, the Left would be waved on, nothing to see here.

  2. Exactly, Jim.

    The head of the FBI just announced that Hillary didn’t really intend to violate the statute, when everyone can see she intended to violate it, and lack of intent is not even a defense for violating the statute.

  3. In France I believe it is an offence to slag off politicians and bureaucrats even if it is the truth. Yet the state can do the same to the people they govern with impunity and at the same time use and make up laws to rob them blind and silence them.

    It is a weird world we live in almost enough to make me want to be an anarchist. Revolutionaries sometime have a point. Pity when they succeed they then set about emulating those they depose with zealous vigour. The French revolution spawned socialism and progressivism. So the cycle goes on and nobody learns anything. Socialism, progressivism and statism has been proven to be failures yet we continue with them regardless.

  4. And as far as I can see the example claimed was a misquote of an accurate statement.
    We could spend the entirety of the British EU contribution on the NHS. It would be a daft thing to do, as it would mean shutting down everything we currently fund via the EU, but it is technically true.
    OTOH the claim that the EU has kept the peace in Europe since WWII is patently untrue.

  5. What in buggery does anyone think politics is other than lying to the public for electoral gain?

    Is or ought?

    Politics ‘ought’ to be the art of mediating competing interests.

  6. And as far as I can see the example claimed was a misquote of an accurate statement.

    The photo is of Boris in front of a poster with the words, “Let’s give our NHS the £350million the EU takes every week.” Then of course there is a the infamous bus, “We send the EU £350million a week, let’s spend it on the NHS instead.” I understand £1 is £1 too much, but we don’t send the EU £350million a week. Saying we do is to utter a falsehood – if that’s deliberate that is a lie. If the poster said, “we send the EU £250million a week” that would not be a lie. It is usually wrong to lie.

    Re “An example is during the European Union referendum whereby a mainstay of the ‘leave’ campaign was that £350million extra per week would be spent on the NHS if we vote to leave, ” I don’t recall any Leave campaigners pledging that spend or being in a position to do so. It may be what some people understood or inferred from the posters – but it’s literally a suggestion, not a promise, so not a falsehood.

  7. It was wrong to say we give 350 GBP to the EU every time week. However, considering what saying the EU has kept the peace is equally dishonest.

  8. The Inimitable Steve

    Re: The £350m.

    Who – apart from arseblasted Remainers – cares? Joe Public certainly doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about sums.

    And no figure Leave presented would’ve been acceptable to Remain. Do we believe – if the bus said £250m or whatever – the Remainers would’ve shrugged and said “fair do’s”? Nah.

    They were hoping to bog the Leave campaign down in aspergery arguments over arthmetic. They failed.

    They hoped to terrify people with a deluge of stories prophesying all manner of ills if we left the EU. Terrorists, Paedos and Bores… oh my! They failed.

    They hoped to use the murdered body of Jo Cox as a gruesome meat puppet to shame people into voting Remain. They failed.

    Remain lost. Britain won. Dry your eyes and wipe your mouths, Eurofannies.

  9. “Brexit bumhurt again.”
    Indeed.
    There’s a fair case the £350m p/w claim was over egging a tad & the net figure was closer to £250m. It’d be possible to have a discussion about that. But that isn’t what the remnant camp want to do, is it? Because 250. 350. They’re both very large numbers. And the Remnant’s have never wanted to get bogged down in actual numbers. because if you start looking at all the incident costs of being in the EU, against the gains – the net trade imbalance for a start. Opportunity cost. Then the numbers game, if we’re all being required to tell the truth, starts making the Remain case look very shaky.
    What they’re actually after is to remove all the objective arguments from the discussion. Because facts have a nasty tendency to be pinned down & examined. And keep it to the touchy-feely subjective stuff. No more wars in Europe (except the ones we’ve had) because we’re all such happy-clappy Europeans. Because all the subjective stuff is personal opinion & can be any lies you fancy.

  10. I can’t help thinking that the reason there’s no enthusiasm for a redo of Brexit is because they know they lied their little hearts out, sold their grandmothers and sacrificed their first born to get the leave vote down to 52%. Now that project fear has been shown to be harmless hyperbole they’d be lucky to get below 60% on a rerun.

  11. Strange isn’t it? The Remainians always seem to forget the mendacious statements made in the Dave ‘n’ George show pre- Brexit, ie. “Hard working families” being £4300 p.a. worse off, house prices sliding into an abyss, emergency budget required etc. blah blah blah.
    Get over it girls. “The people have spoken. The bastards.”

  12. Boris claimed it was £350m. The remain side had their chance to rebut that and said it wasn’t that, and people still voted to leave.

    And like bloke in spain, I do wonder if this was deliberate. Produce a figure that’s the worst case and put remainers in the position of rebutting it, but in the process, you have them a remain leader saying a figure from his own lips.

    I came close to bottling it, and in hindsight, I’m so glad I didn’t. I’ve been on the wrong side in many elections and never shared a platform with such a bunch of cry-babies.

  13. Who…cares?
    I care. When there’s a referendum or an election, give the public the facts, present the pros and cons of the choices, and let us decide.

    I reject the Worstall view, apparently widely supported by brexiters, that politics should be about telling lies more convincingly than the other lot.

  14. I don’t say that it should be. I say that *it is*.

    “Raising the minimum wage won’t cost jobs”….that’s just as much a lie as the 350 million is.

  15. I couldn’t help notice that Mr. Bickerdike was a bit fuzzy on the legal details of his proposal. That said, it was stupid enough that I’m surprised it didn’t get published in the Guardian.

    Moron.

  16. I reject the Worstall view, apparently widely supported by brexiters, that politics should be about telling lies more convincingly than the other lot.

    “Should be”, okay, I’ll agree with you.
    “Is”, as per the OP, is demonstrably true.

  17. Emergency budget in the event of Brexit anyone? How big a lie was that? A pretty big one I’d say, so big in fact no-one believed it and immediately concluded the Remain camp had jumped the shark completely.

    How about David ‘I’ll stay on after a Leave vote and implement Brexit’ Cameron? That a big enough lie for you?

    The worst the Leave can be accused of is over numbers – was the UK contribution £250m or £350m? The principle (we could spend whatever we sent to Brussels on the NHS) was never in doubt, merely the quantum. Whereas the Remain argument was riddled with outright lies that have proved to have zero basis in truth.

  18. ps – don’t forget ‘back of the queue’ Obama, with the US (and other important trading nations) now all saying they’d be happy to sign trade deals with Britain.

  19. Hahaha pearl clutching wankers…

    Casting a vote for leave. Took me all of 10mins to walk down to the polling station and scrawl my X, but we’ve had weeks (possibly years to come) of splendid scahdenfreude. What a rate of return!

  20. ” give the public the facts, present the pros and cons of the choices, and let us decide”

    Once again, SJW proves that he is an utter moron. Access to information has never been so easy in the history of the world, yet you’re still too stupid or lazy to get it yourself? And as if you were going to listen to anything the other side would say anyway! Politicians deal in emotions, not facts, because people react to their emotions, not facts.

    By the way, wasn’t there a similar story with the worst pm in history, brown?

  21. @SJW “I care. When there’s a referendum or an election, give the public the facts, present the pros and cons of the choices, and let us decide.”

    Like fuck you do. You cunts lie about everything all of the time – the end justifies the means.

    “I reject the Worstall view, apparently widely supported by brexiters, that politics should be about telling lies more convincingly than the other lot.”

    eg above. TW didn’t say this, you liar.

  22. I know the truth. But many commentators on here have defended the £350m lie as accurate, in this thread and others. (See Pat above.) Lies work.

    And I’m picking on this one precisely because it’s numerical, and therefore can easily be shown to be false. Statements about contrafactual alternatives (“the EU has kept the peace”) or about intent (“I won’t resign”) are less clearcut.

    It’s a small thing to ask that politicians should not feature in their campaigns statements they know to be false.

  23. Wouldn’t this just outlaw socialism on the basis that the basic premise of “fairness” is always proved to be bollocks?

  24. This article, by a leftist, commends itself as a concise corrective for Remainers:

    http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=2092

    Send it along to any crybabies you know, and see if they are capable of understanding that what they have lost is ‘marginal’ (to quote the article) and that what they have gained is, assuming we are ever allowed to get out, priceless. Then they can ask themselves which side uttered more falsehoods, and why, during the campaign.

  25. Making it “a criminal offence to knowingly mislead the public to achieve electoral gain” would be a disaster, because there are few (if any?) ‘brute’ facts in human affairs and the distinction between what is an empirical fact and what is value-laden is very far from sharp. Interpretation and the chosen benchmarks for that interpretation often determine what is considered a fact. Which is not to slide into relativism: it is possible to argue rationally about human affairs, but it helps to recognise that all political theories and ideologies are based on often unexamined assumptions about human nature.

  26. On the Norway option my MEP told me before the referendum, “they pay, obey, and have no say”. Cameron is also on record as saying this.
    The last two are outright lies, and the on the payment question, the UK would pay about £50m a week to EU programmes if the payment was in proportion to the UK/NOR GDP ratio.
    Now it looks a good bet we will get the Norway option or similar, but the scum won’t be apologising for lying to me, I’m sure.

  27. “Raising the minimum wage won’t cost jobs”….that’s just as much a lie as the 350 million is.

    That’s poor Tim. The £350m is just a straight lie – it’s easy to prove that it’s false, and Brexit campaigners continued to use it knowing that.

    Whereas, as I’m sure you know, the effects of a minimum wage have been the subject of considerable research, and much of it suggests that there’s little or no detectable effect on employment.

    Simple economics tells one that there must be some elasticity of demand for labour, but real economics can be more complicated than that. Efficiency Wage Theory suggests that the net cost to employers of paying a little more than they would in the absence of a minimum wage could be very small. So the direct employment effect could be correspondingly small. And there’s an indirect stimulus effect – poor people spend their income – which could more than make up for it.

  28. Efficiency wages don’t work with the minimum wage. Because efficiency wages are, by definition, about paying more than other people.

  29. SJW
    The £350mpw is not a “straight lie”. It is true – in that it is the gross figure. It is false in so far as it is not the net figure.

    That said, the Leave campaign were right in so far as that £350mpw could be spent in other ways – eg on the NHS – rather than on the EU’s bureaucracy and what the EU decides to refund in various ways.

    The fact here is: post-Brexit, the UK state has an extra £350m pw to squander. And it will borrow even more.

  30. Efficiency wages, by definition, are about paying more than the market-clearing price.

    A simple theory says that there’s a market-clearing price for a particular job, and any payment above that is a straight loss to employers.

    Efficiency wage theory says that workers tend to be more productive if you pay them more. Employers will, of their own accord, pay the wage which maximises productivity per pound when that’s above the market-clearing wage.

    The effect of a minimum wage is to oblige some employers to pay more than they would of their own accord. If that amount is merely a clearing price, paying above it is a straight loss to employers. Whereas if it’s a maximum on a curve, paying above it costs them only a small fraction of the extra money paid.

  31. If it doesn’t matter what the number is, why not print the true number on the poster – or why print the poster at all?

    The £350mpw is not a “straight lie”. It is true – in that it is the gross figure. It is false in so far as it is not the net figure.

    “We send the EU £350m pw” is false. We don’t. “the UK’s contribution to the EU is paid after the application of the rebate. ” – Statistics Authority.

  32. Doesn’t matter what the amount was no one changed their vote because the gross figure was used rather than the net figure and it is grossly insulting to suggest so. When this type of rubbish is pushed by a campaign that lied from one end of it’s campaign to the other it annoying as well. If you are really interested in why people voted to leave ( and it wasn’t this 350 versus 250 million figure) you should go and do some research and stop making yourselves look stupid.

  33. I wish I had the ethical suppleness to ignore the dozens of lies told by my side focus on one made by the opposition. Such skills must come in useful in other areas of life.

  34. That said, the Leave campaign were right in so far as that £350mpw could be spent in other ways – eg on the NHS – rather than on the EU’s bureaucracy and what the EU decides to refund in various ways.

    The fact here is: post-Brexit, the UK state has an extra £350m pw to squander. And it will borrow even more.

    Well, there you have it. All the claims that the lies don’t matter are wrong. Because some people believe them.

    The fact is that the £350m pw cannot now be spent in other ways, because it was never going to the EU. That was the lie.

  35. @SJW “We could spend the entirety of the British EU contribution on the NHS… If we did, it would be much less than the number written on the bus, which was a straight lie.”

    Not so. Not only would we save the £10 billion a year (due to rise to £12 billion simply because of the change in the way that the EU calculates GDP), but we will also save considerable amounts by buying imports on world markets at prices considerably lower than the prices from EU countries. Why buy solar cells at German prices when we can buy the same from China without the 111% import duty? Just the lower food prices takes the savings way over £350 million a week.

  36. SJW–Fuck off.

    You endorse and defend daily a bullshit creed that has murdered 150 million human beings and ruined the lives of hundreds of millions more but you have the sanctimonious gall to be on here whining about some figure of money which may or may not have been slightly inaccurate.

    You leftist fucks weren’t behind the door when they handed out brass neck were you.

  37. SJW Your still patting yourself on the head and saying what a clever boy I am, your not listening. Everyone knew that the 350m was a gross figure and not the net figure because the remain campaign and their allies in the BBC spent every interview pointing it out. It made no difference to the outcome. Given the thrust of the comment was that we transfer a lot of money to the EU was true , your left quibbling about detail. Given the vile dishonesty of the remain campaign your not doing yourself a lot of credit here.

  38. SJW
    But the claim is that, post-Brexit, the UK government will have some £350m pw to squander that it previously didn’t have. Are you saying that is false?

  39. So the EU doesn’t spend any money at in the UK at all- because the money never gets to the EU in the first place. Hence all those signs claiming that such and such is funded by the EU are lies.
    The whole thread illustrates the fatuity of the petition.
    Either side in an election, court case or debate will present the facts that suit it’s case and omit those that don’t. Hence remainders want the net figure for the EU contribution, leavers want the gross. Either figure on its own is misleading.
    They also put facts forward in a way that suits their case- witness talking of 350m per week rather than 20b per year. 350 is much larger than 20 and some get confused between million and billion- especially in the Guardian.

  40. But the claim is that, post-Brexit, the UK government will have some £350m pw to squander that it previously didn’t have. Are you saying that is false?

    Yes, it’s false. The actual payment is about £250m pw. The “£350m” is before the rebate.

  41. The poster didn’t say, “in accounting terms, in 2014 our Gross National Contribution to the EU was £350m a week.” It said “We send the EU £350m a week.” The former is a fact. The latter isn’t a fact, it’s a falsehood. If it’s a deliberate falsehood, it’s a lie.

    This isn’t difficult.

  42. @SJW – How much of the rebate was being spent on the NHS? because if none of it was then that’s £350m which COULD be spent on the NHS. No?

  43. ‘Twas ever thus:

    Nie wird soviel gelogen wie nach einer Jagd, im Krieg und vor Wahlen.
    People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.

    Prince Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck, Duke of Lauenburg (1815-1898)

  44. “Yes, it’s false. The actual payment is about £250m pw. The “£350m” is before the rebate”

    But:
    1. The gross figure of c. £350m pw is broadly correct
    2. The net figure of c. £250m pw is broadly correct
    3. A rebate doesn’t alter the gross figure
    4. Post-brexit, the UK government has an extra £350m pw to squander, because that money is no longer tied (directly or indirectly) to expenditure on the EU.

  45. The “rebate” is a reduction to our gross contribution. The actual gross contribution is about £250m a week. The net contribution is a lot less than that. Post brexit, the UK government will have an extra £250m a week to spend.

    (Except that the farmers and the regions will want their EU money replacing. And that we’ll have to pay, as Norway does, if we want to be in the single market. Perhaps £90m a week, to be negotiated.)

  46. well it won’t be 90 mil as that would include the EU spend on EU propaganda. But the point isn’t the money the point is we get to choose on what we spend the money, we may not choose to subsidise farmers or we may. The referendum was on whether the liberty we give up to be a member of the EU was worth what we got from it. Arguing about some minor technical details is irrelevant to the larger picture. Given the scope that is available from getting out of the low growth EU and into the wider world these numbers are just errors in estimates.

  47. SJW

    In my simple mind, you pay the gross fee on your credit card and get the rebate to your credit card; but if you only have enough credit on your card to pay the net fee, the payment of the gross fee will be refused.

    In any event, the UK government has at least £250m pw extra to squander, and the UK has at least some control over how it is spent. When the EU ‘grants’ money to the UK, the UK electorate has no say over how and why it is spent.

  48. But I thought people supported Brexit because they were racist.

    How can that be true, and also that they voted on the basis of the £350m per week?

    They’re searching for a clue, and not finding it.

  49. The real driver behind this is the claim that the Leave vote was based on a lie.

    For this to be the case, you’d still need to demonstrate that the extra expenditure on the NHS was what led to the Leave vote, at least to some extent. Which the kaloi kagathoi haven’t bothered to do.

  50. With every bomb/gun/truck caper, with every piece of economic bad news support for the remain gang goes down. Without the status quo//”my pile of peanuts” types that make up most remain support there might be 2-3 mil active traitors.

    Not too many to expel when the time ripens. They can be with their europals for ever.

  51. Bloke in North Dorset

    Is there any evidence that people were misled by the £350m figure? We had the full force of the State countering it, ably supported by the BBC, Sky News, Guardian and no doubt other news organisations so those that were misled were either on planet Zog or too stupid to find their way to a polling booth.

    At the other end of the scale how many people were put off voting Leave by threats of emergency budgets and the end of civilisation?

    And how do you prove someone was knowingly misled? If people can’t be bothered to be informed on a subject it’s difficult to say they were misled, let alone deliberately. Just about every utterance from a politician will mislead someone and it’s very easy to accuse them of doing it deliberately.

  52. If printing “£250m” or “£350m” makes no difference whatsoever to public opinion (and I make no claim about what difference it made), why not print the truth instead of the falsehood?

    In my simple mind, you pay the gross fee on your credit card and get the rebate to your credit card; but if you only have enough credit on your card to pay the net fee, the payment of the gross fee will be refused.

    Yes, “rebate” is the wrong word for something that is deducted before payment.

  53. “The “rebate” is a reduction to our gross contribution. The actual gross contribution is about £250m a week. The net contribution is a lot less than that. Post brexit, the UK government will have an extra £250m a week to spend.”

    This is just playing with words. The ONS list the nominal gross contribution as 19.1bn for 2014 (367m per week). They then apply various things we get back from the EU, starting with the rebate, in an effort to make it look as good as possible. They are therefore treating the rebate as part of the calculation to give a net figure. After the rebate the number they give for 2014 is 14.7bn or 283m per week. This is a net figure minus rebate.

    There is nothing wrong in using a gross figure in this context. Working out that it is a gross figure is made pretty easy by the government.

    Just a minor point but it might be interesting for you to consider why you lied and gave a figure of 250m per week when the number provided by the ONS is clearly much higher. Most sane people will just look at the actual figures and draw their own conclusions.

  54. There is nothing wrong in using a gross figure in this context.

    The posters claim we send the gross figure, as you put it. We don’t “send” the gross figure, is the point.

    The ONS list … the number provided by the ONS

    Great, you see the ONS as authoritative.

    “Before the UK government transfers any money to the EU a rebate is applied.” – the ONS

    The posters should not have claimed that we send £350m a week.

  55. No, they shouldn’t. But once they did and the issue was pointed out, a retraction would have been a tactical disaster.

  56. This proposal to make it a criminal offence to mislead to achieve electoral gain is classic progressive tactic.

    It reflects a habitually dishonest way of seeing the world, obsessed with details and the idea of exposing the ‘lies’ of the right, not at all worried by the socialist history of complete failure.

  57. Still waiting for a ikliberty response regarding Cameron’s and Osborne’s lies in the Remain campaign………………

  58. Doesn’t matter if we send it and they send us back a rebate, or if we merely deduct the rebate at source and send the net amount. Gross is gross, net is net. it is perfectly ok to talk about a gross amount or a net amount. Both fine. No lies involved.

  59. “Great, you see the ONS as authoritative”

    The ONS is the government tool dedicated to making the remain case look as solid as possible in this instance. I am using it because it favours the remain argument.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *