Countering the lies
Fraser Nelson 4:38pm
My, British politics is becoming litigious. First Shami Chakrabarti threatens to sue over “smears” about her and David Davis, and now David Cameron is talking about suing the Liberal Democrats over the contents of their Henley literature.
There is an instinct to say ‘grow up, it’s only politics’ but its about time the Tories started getting muscular about the lies told about them. Gordon Brown lied his way through the 2005 election campaign, saying the Tories would make £35bn of “cuts” when they (alas) promised not just to outspend Labour but to raise the tax burden too. If Brown repeated these claims in a document regulated by the London Stock Exchange he would go to jail. It’s literally an offence for a company to claim in listing particulars that it is “cutting”, spending when it fact it intends to raise it by a lower trajectory. But the Tories have generally laid back and let Brown’s lies be repeated by the press. Time and time again.
The rules that billboard adverts must tell the truth are actually suspended for political campaigns. This should not be. If the public cannot be misled about the quality of a toothpaste, nor should they be about the propositions of a government. Stuart Wheeler is heroically trying to make this case now over Brown reneging on his manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on the renamed EU Constitution. I doubt Cameron will get very far suing the LibDems, but his action will show Labour that - like Wheeler - he will use the law as far as he can.
Previous
Comments
Pete
June 20th, 2008 5:16pmMaybe this is what it takes to start cleaning up politics.
Good move.
Emma
June 20th, 2008 5:35pmIts about time. Anyone who has campaigned at a local level knows exactly what the Lib Dems are like. They need a few sharp litigious shocks to curb their shenanigans.
Adam Atashzai
June 20th, 2008 6:01pmWhile I definitely agree, the courts will be incredibly reluctant to get involved in electioneering unless it's over a technical matter.
There is a danger that the courts would be used to challenge legitimate but controversial claims by political parties, leading to a reluctance on their part to make them - even if they're needed. This could happen even if such challenges were frivolous - parties may not want the bother of court cases in the middle of campaigns - and so won't make controversial arguments in the first place.
It could damage free speech.
But - as long as the courts keep their interventions to clear lies - like the ones Fraser notes - then there shouldn't be a problem.
Adam Atashzai
June 20th, 2008 6:18pmMaybe an equivalent to the Financial Services Authority or the City's Takeover Panel - say an "Election Panel" - could be set up and operated through election time to regulate the standard of campaigning.
It would be made up of cross-party elected members and its job would be to quickly deal with challenges by parties over their opponent's claims.
Its judgments could be legally non-binding so there's no real threat to free speech. However the decisions would be made public so parties will want to retract claims for fear of looking bad.
TomTom
June 20th, 2008 6:25pmNoone takes election junk seriously so why don't the Tories simply set up a rebuttal stand in the market square and list "LibDem Lies" and "State the Facts"
It is far better to use the Market Square and a WEbcam to get the facts out "live"
TGF UKIP
June 20th, 2008 7:22pmFraser, so why does Dave get all aggressive with the LibDems on the issue but not with Gordon and Labour?
Pete
June 20th, 2008 10:23pmTomTom,
"Noone takes election junk seriously "
That is why there is so much apathy, everybody thinks politicians are liars.
If politicians were held accountable for their utterences maybe then we can get rid of the gutter personality stuff and start debating policies.
Pete
June 20th, 2008 10:51pmHow do you command respect?
FEAR!
Fear of loss of favour, fear of litigation, fear of violence, etc, etc,
Certain groups within our society have already cracked this!
If you want to demand respect you have to instill a fear of consequences.
MMMMM! Didn't that used to be called Law and Order?
Tiberius
June 21st, 2008 9:38amIt is true that the Tories have been slow to defend themselves against the series of Labour lies about them, but this goes back 10 years and is probably due to the fact that no one would listen to them on this anymore than they would on anything else. So it's not just under Cameron's leadership that this has happened.
I remember Oliver Letwin trying to explain why the #35b of tax cuts was no such thing, but the message just did not connect.
It is ironic, but it is now anything that Labour says which is ignored. So I'd say there is no actual need to rebut the lies now, unless the Tories just want to rub Labour's face in the sand, which, come to think of it, is politically rather appealing.
Fraser, your series of articles last week were compelling reading. There has to come a point where Cameron takes the opportunity which he and Brown between them have engineered, and start announcing a radical theme for which there is a growing impatience. But with the state of the polls, he could leave the serious stuff until the New Year of 2010. It may be that Brown further wrecks things so much over the next 18 months, that Cameron would have to change policy announcements made now to cope with the changed situation.