Hence the discussion,

The type of lie Sunak told is very different from the lies told at every election. It is not just more lies. It is a dangerous falsehood based on definable evidenced facts.

IE not that Labours policys will cost 2k. While that is a very questionable claim. Fact checking a Ready handles such things.

But the fact that the treasury supported his data. That was an outright lie. To the point starmer was publicly willing to call it one. Something political figures are historically more careful of them actual lies.

It is dangerous because voters know the civil service is not allowed to be politically motivated. They Camrose their jobs for it at any time. But during an election. It is more the a rule. It is the whole mandate of the civil service.

So when Sunak claimed this falsely, he was trying to override the existence of fact checkers by telling his voters he had more reliable independent evidence.

This is why I think, we need the partition to be very concise and well worded,

But also a social media compain based on that very clear limitation in what is being asked for.

iE we have 4 weeks and the whole of the Internet. To address these questions before starmer can dismiss them.

None of these are lies. Manipulation of the same family certainly. It was true that we sent £350 million per week to the EU, except it really wasn't and yet if you offered evidence that it was a lie it'd be easy to produce evidence that it wasn't. Truth is complex.

Just to nit pick a bit, because of how the rebate worked we literally didn't transfer that 350m figure, as the discount was applied immediately, like, er, a meal deal? 😁

https://fullfact.org/europe/membership-fee-eu/

Let us reflect on how parties might react to this and how a simple law might not achieve your aims.

They will respond by having 3rd parties announce their lies. But hesitate to repeat them as officials of the campaign.

Another wrinkle is deciding who is going to police this, who is the arbiter of truths and lies?

The same people who examine any evidence. The courts. There is a reason I propose the simple statement. If clear evidence dose not proove a statement wrong. It is not covered.

IE here the civil service informed that they did not consider the data. So a court can easily confirm the data used by the civil service. And confirm the campaign had received information.

So the result of the law would.d be campaigns have to think about claims before repeating g them. Or face potential of legal, punishment.

In almost every case I can think of, political parties already avoid lying.

Yep except that seems to be changing. Sunak was very open about claiming the treasury civil servents had approved his data. After the treasury had informed him it had not.

Personally I think the boris bus (That likely would not be included here) court case. Has drematicallly changed how desperate party politicians see lies. But of course I can't see into their minds, only propose a solution.

With statistics they can find the right one to backup their point and ignore the other study.

Agreed. And that is by definition not a lie. But when they use claims of professional bodies backing them up. Or in this case professionals civil servents who are required not to express political, bias. It is a very different level. Much much more important then statistics that every one subconsciously knows are not facts.

The treasury agrees with our figures is the lie. Not the figures. Given the status of the treasury it is also a freaking dangerous lie. And as the treasury had informed Labour of its falsehood. Their civil service non political involvmet requirements mean they will have informed the Conservatives as well. So the lie is provable. The evidence is their to be collected. Evidence not of a questionable claim. That is not a lie and not expected to be covered by my proposal. But evidence of the claiming is backed up by civil service independence.

In short… “Examine a law not for the good it will do if correctly applied but for the harm it will cause if incorrectly applied”

Thank you for being the first to respond. We basically agree on the idea. But as I said wording is where I need help.

The fact is you read my post. And assumed I was trying to prevent campaign claims and data. I am not and honestly tried and failed to make that clear in my post.

Hence I need help.

Lies are a clear and definable thing. Even if politics distorts the idea of truth. What we saw yesterday was very much a new level of activity. One that needs shutting down before it becomes a common part of our elections.

My reason for mentioning the bus. Was not to include it. While it was scummy no one logical thought boris would be convicted.

But I feel the court openly stating that no As exists making election lies a crime. Rather then we can't proove this is a lie.

While accurate. Has changed the way desperate politicians see the act of sharing knowingly false facts.

Again this is why I feel I need help in wording the partition.

Honestly the 350m bus lie was never going to be proven illegal. Even if a law like this existed.

We did send 350m to the EU. So it was just a claim about what we can do with it. As the savings not existing is a claim about future actions. Nothing will ever proove it was a lie. Because the facts to proove the new world would not have it. Can always be changed.

It like me telling you if you jump of a building you won't die. Of course most would say I am lieing. But their are so many things that could happen in the future. And no way of prooving what I know of the actions around me.

How can you proove I did not know there will be a fire man with a inflatable arriving before you jump.

But if I tell your lover you jumped and did not die. Things are very different.

And that is where sunak was different.

If he told parliment labour will cast 2k in tax would not be a lie, just a very very questionable claim. If starmer jumped of the building he'd survive like claim. He is making assumptions no one can clai is false. Only that voters wou.d be stupid accept it.

But when he claimed the treasury supported the claim. If he had done that in parliment he would have faced parliamentary punishment. As pathetic as it has been. Technically they could jail him but would not.

Because not only dose he know his party did not provide the same data to the treasury. He has been informed by the treasury before the debate. (We know this as the treasury informed Labour. And their non political civil service code required them to inform the tories as we. )

So the seriose risk is different to BJs bus.

In court while he was not convinced because the court said parliment had made no law. If parliment had then he likely would still be found not guilty.

Rushing Sunk looked at this differently.mhe knowingly and is evidenced to have told an out right lie about the treasurys actions. Not the actual 2kmthat is without the lie. Just an opinion.

And he did this the very first election where he saw court president stating no law existed.

The issue I see is how the parlimentry partitions website is set up.

I think intentionally. But will take of the tinfoil.

The partition only allows for a very very short statement.

Even with this post. Many reply think I am trying to address statistics and claims rather then the clear and obvious lie that the treasury supported Sunaks data.

The bus court case may have given sunak president to openly lie in a campaign.

But even if this law existed. The bus was not provable. Anyone logical knew he would win.

The bus simply said we pay the EU 350m lets do this,

So it lacked information rather then stated provable false facts.

Sunak stated provable false facts. IE civil servente back up this data.

Given labour had received evidence that was false. Before the debate. And the civil service has a mandate to be non political. Is is provable that the service would also have sent the tories the same letter.

So again very provable that the campaign knowingly let sunak lie. Id say tomintentionally limit the power of fact checkers with what they rightly see as a less questionable source.

This partition needs to be worded in a concise way. That means no one can question exactly what we want.

One very short paragraph is all we get.

Plus a social media complain is we can get another folks interested and informed on the goals.

I am not actually thinking of this as a choice.

My point is we need to convince enouth people it is possible and important enough. That Starmer or Rishi Responding to the petition with their usual waffle will achive something that terrifies and elected PM.

The first 100 days ending up with lower polling numbers then the election.

The UK has since the days of TV. Judged a politician on how that handle the first 100 days. And in general the UK is pretty forgiving. To the point PMs failing to out last a lettuce was almost unheard of. Much more so post even a close election. Every PM is considered to have a mandate at that point. So the laws he or she tries to pass are considered to be the most direct will of the people. (despite fptp meaning only 30% often choose that leader).

So while Sunak polls are so low its hard to imagine anything coming across as negative if he some how pulls a win.

Stammer already has worries about being less popular dispite the potential of a big win. Polling wise. He like most will be keen to avoid anything that looks like betrayal in that first 100 days where polling is watched closly by media.

So that is where our power lies. If we can get the support on social media. And form a well worded petition with well over 100k votes. Forcing the new parliament to disuse openly in committee where everyone can see their claims.

The issue is not so much if. But how we avoid everyone watching falling for the idea we are trying to cover all lies. Rather then clear and informed false facts. Like the tresury viewed our data and agrees. When the party knows full well the treasury has told MPs to not make that claim as it is false.