Why is it OK for politicians to lie?

Legacy_user

kinger101 wrote: »

All I see from that top link is that the both sides were making claims that they knew were incorrect. A quick scan through some of the other EU topics on that site shows both parties seem to distort the facts.

Why is this OK? I genuinely don't understand.

I was going to dump this in the brexit thread but it's not really about Remain/Leave.

For something as unimportant as an advert about a packet of crisps there is an ASA, advertising standards authority. They say "Our purpose is to make advertisements responsible and our ambition is to make every UK ad a responsible ad."

The idea here is the protect the masses because they know a huge proportion of people in this country will believe ANYTHING they are told (just take a look at at the amount of people sharing the hoax Facebook announcement about all out data being public soon which I already mentioned elsewhere as well).

So why is it OK in Politics? Why isn't there a "PSA"? A Politics Standards Authority could have swooped down on nonsense like the £350m NHS claim and banned it instantly. https://fullfact.org/europe/membership-fee-eu/ (This is just the top link on fullfact I picked out)

Meanwhile the same people who think Facebook are going to make all their photos public are believing this stuff too. I find it mind boggling.

I did briefly did some research and it seems the ASA can't touch politics, time for this to be reviewed maybe? https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2014/Political-advertising.aspx

DiggerUK

It would confuse us if they told the truth..._

wymondham

A truthful politician, interesting thought! I suppose a lot of it is interpretation - two politicians can spin the same news to suit their purpose - neither will be fibbing, just 'spin'....

kinger101

It is shocking. Apparently, one MP calling another MP a liar in the House of Commons is about the worst thing they can do. They have to use all sorts of euphemisms. They "mis-remembered" or "misinterpreted" something.

I think the ASA only regulates goods and services.

Would be good to have a "truth" rating for politicians though.

I think the reality is, the more lies you tell, the more successful you become.

Dave Cameron - reducing immigration to tens of thousands
Tony Blair - WMD in Iraq
Nick Clegg - tuition fees (though I'm being unfair here - they had no majority)

StevieJ

I think they get away with because the press generally don't take then to task unless it suits the agenda of their owners. Oh for a media industry that was completely independent. Having said that I really don't understand how they got away with that £350 million lie

vivatifosi

The £350m per week thing really winds me up. They were told not to use it, then I saw a bus saying £50m per day instead.

cells

I cringe when they are bickering at each other and instead of saying your a fekin liar, they say your telling 'untruths'. Like they are talking to a 3 year old

kinger101

Of course, if the media gives them a hard time, they'll not come on the show. I remember Andrew Marr interrogating Boris on £350M figure, and he was making some headway. But it would have been refreshing if Marr could have just said "Boris, I've intereviewed many policians, but I have to tell you........that's the biggest pile of horse5h1t I've heard in long time".

Conrad

kinger101 wrote: »

Of course, if the media gives them a hard time, they'll not come on the show. I remember Andrew Marr interrogating Boris on £350M figure, and he was making some headway. But it would have been refreshing if Marr could have just said "Boris, I've intereviewed many policians, but I have to tell you........that's the biggest pile of horse5h1t of heard in long time".

A far greater more sinister deceit was Camborne ordering the Treasury to consider negative only modelling outcomes. A dispicable abuse of power that the foolish sucked down hook line and sinker

justme111

Joeskeppi wrote: »

For something as unimportant as an advert about a packet of crisps there is an ASA, advertising standards authority.

It is indeed mind boggling. I wonder why public does not seem to ask this question all the time, it is the first time I come across it and indeed it is incredible - as you say crisps get toughest policing while fates of countries and continents can have massive lies as basis for deciding.
I guess it is because with crisps there is a tangible object , with politicians there is blah blah. Misinformation, misunderstandings, change of intentions due to changing circumstances and other reasons would be used as a justification so nothing could be proved.

CLAPTON

kinger101 wrote: »

Of course, if the media gives them a hard time, they'll not come on the show. I remember Andrew Marr interrogating Boris on £350M figure, and he was making some headway. But it would have been refreshing if Marr could have just said "Boris, I've intereviewed many policians, but I have to tell you........that's the biggest pile of horse5h1t I've heard in long time".

but would have been a lie wouldn't it?