Would I lie to you?

As reported by some colleagues at the Open University, “The Welsh Labour government (reluctantly but with cross-party support) has committed to legislating to bar elected politicians from the Senedd if they refuse to apologise after having been found to have lied, even if the lie was committed outside the chamber.”

Should this be the case in Westminster? On the one hand, off with the Labour politicians’ collective heads, I say. The gallows is too good for them. Lammy claimed the Chagos islanders had been consulted on his surrender to a Chinese ally – Lie. Reeves said the Tories had left her with a £22bn black hole – Lie. Starmer said he was a man of integrity – Oh, don’t make me laugh. And on and on and on, non-stop throughout Starmergeddon’s first 100+ days (Jeez – it feels like a lifetime). Another reason for such legislation is to mirror what the corporate world is subject to. For example, executives can’t lie about the financial state of the business. Further, employees who lie can be subject to disciplinary procedures. Fine and dandy.

Then why was my kneejerk reaction to learning of this ‘liar' legislation one of abject horror and foreboding? I think my answer stems from a fundamental tenet, that the aim of any legislation should be to facilitate good, and prevent / minimise, harm. Yes, preventing lying is good, but when a politician lies, can it be proved beyond reasonable doubt exactly what harm is done?

Take the example of Boris eating cake and breaking lockdown rules. Did he? Didn’t he? I’ve said all along, what does it matter? What actual harm did he do? Was anyone hurt or robbed? Was Blighty’s security compromised? No. Take another example. The Leave campaign lied about Turkey joining the EU. Did that lie change the referendum outcome? Even if it did, can it be proved (beyond reasonable doubt) that leaving the EU brought about a net harm to society? Even if it can, what would happen should Leaving bring forth a net benefit in 5 or 10-years’ time? And please note that the Boris Bus claim of £350m per week payments to the EU being redirected to the NHS turned out to be true. Whereas, Project Fear turned out to be false.

When is a lie not a lie? When it’s an incomplete truth. Time and again I’ve dissected what a politician has said, and everything in that statement is true, but some truths have been omitted, and the logical conclusion from what they do say is a lie.

Apparently, an opinion is not a lie. So a politician can say with impunity that there’s no such thing as climate change, when any sensible person knows that the climate is changing. A more intelligent and constructive discussion would be about the causes of climate change and what to do about them.

Forecasts and manifesto pledges would be excluded from the legislation, which means a vile, crooked politician could say in their manifesto that they’d protect pensioners, but within days of coming to office, they could remove the winter fuel allowance. Surely that’s a too awful and blatant scenario, and I made it up.

Some lies are so blatant and harmful, they should be subject to criminal investigation by the police and sentencing by the courts. Remember when Labour MP Tom Watson stood up in the house and falsely accused the great and the good of unspeakable crimes? He traumatised the falsely accused and their families, who lost materially as well as emotionally. Yet Boris ate cake and harmed no one.

Then there’s the question of who would prove or disprove any harm. Sue Gray and Horrible Harmen investigated Boris – I’d laugh if I wasn’t still crying. And what would be the opportunity costs of the investigations? More money for lawyers and bureaucrats. Less money for defence and care for the elderly. In other words, these investigations would cause more harm than politicians’ lies.

The funny thing is, we already have a mechanism for ousting politicians who lie – it’s called the ballot box. The reason Welsh Labour (and I wouldn’t be surprised if Westminster Labour followed suit) want to legislate against lying politicians and seize control from the electorate, is because they don’t trust the electorate. The electorate get it wrong. Labour is of course referring to the Brexit referendum and the 2019 Get Brexit Done general election. Can’t have we pesky right-so-far wingers deciding who we want to serve us. Note: Serve us; not Govern us.

Yet sometimes a politician has to lie, or withhold the truth, for the greater good. One example is Churchill not warning Coventry they were about to be bombed. Another example is guarding against a run on the pound. 

Sometimes it’s for the greater good for us mere mortals to lie as well. Personally, I find it difficult to lie because of my OCD tendencies. If someone says something ridiculous (usually a lefty), I can’t help myself but tell them they’re wrong. If someone asks me a direct question where a direct answer would be hurtful, I’ll fudge it. That’s not to say I never lie. When I do, it’s calculated and strategic.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.