Can we expect politicians to tell the truth?

 I find it concerning that the hashtag #BorisTheLiar is trending on Twitter. There is no doubt that Johnson and other politicians do tell lies, spread misinformation and tell partial truths which give the wrong impression. In the UK there are various media sources which have set up 'Reality Check' pages to tell the full truth.

Do we have the right to expect the truth from politicians? Do we want that right or are we prepared to tolerate lies?

The UK Parliament expects all politicians to tell the truth and follow 'The Nolan Principles.' Government ministers are in addition expected to follow the 'Ministerial Code' which states that “holders of public office should be truthful” and that: “It is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.”

It's a lot harder to discipline an PM who lies than to discipline an MP who calls out the liar. MP Dawn Butler found this out when she challenged Boris Johnson in Parliament, called him a liar and was told to leave the Commons.

Even using the Ministerial Code the decision to ask for resignations resides with the Prime Minister and he's unlikely to demand his own resignation.

Should we accept this? I think not. Parliament should act on this. Here's my suggestion:

When any elected representative can be proved to have lied to or misinformed Parliament or to the public in a party broadcast then they should be penalised by losing 2% of the votes cast for them in the next election. These lost votes should be shared equally amongst other candidates who can garner at least 500 votes. Should an MP be resigning at the end of their term or die in office then these votes should be deducted from their party successor. If an MP is found to have misinformed Parliament or the public accidentally then the votes lost should be 1% provided they make a public apology within seven days.

The effect of this policy would be to ensure MPs are careful to tell the truth and will factcheck their statements carefully.

Here's an example of how it would affect our current PM:

In the last election Boris Johnson got 25,351 votes. Each lie or misinformation he made would cost him 507 votes in the next election. If he told 14 lies he would lose enough votes to lose his seat in Parliament at the next election.

So, who is going to do the fact checking to keep our politicians accurate? I suggest the media existing fact checkers would be the answer. Naturally, political candidates and parties should have a right to challenge the fact checkers.

And #BorisTheLiar - by my count you would already be out of a job at the next election.

https://twitter.com/PeterStefanovi2/status/1459541907772780546

How to fix government (2)

On Quora the following question was asked:

Two party political systems do not seem to be particularly effective since they spend all their time fighting each other. Can you think of a better democratic political system where representatives represent their electors rather than a party?

Updated 2021 and 2025.

Now I've  already had one go at re-organizing government (See How to fix the mess the government is in) but recognize that it will never happen because politicians would have to put it into practice and would be unlikely to vote themselves out of office. So here's my second attempt at designing a sensible form of government.

Most of the issues in politics are caused by a two party system and can be attributed to a ‘first past the post’ election system. It inevitably produces results where the majority are dissatisfied. Take as an example the 2016 UK referendum on the UK leaving the European Community - BREXIT. According to the poll result 52% voted to leave and 48% voted to stay. That seems to imply that there was a narrow majority in favour of leaving. In practice a significant number of voters didn’t vote at all. The reality is that 37% of the electorate voted for BREXIT and 67% either voted to stay or didn’t care about the result. 37% is hardly a majority.

The same is true of General elections. In the 2017 election 42.4% of voters elected a Conservative Member of Parliament (nearest US equivalent would be ‘Republican’) but 68.7% of the electorate bothered to vote. That means that the Conservatives who eventually formed a government did so with just 29.1% support from the electorate. Both sides feel 'the other lot' don't deserve to be there and spend all their time arguing and trying to score points off each other.

The results didn't change dramatically in the 2019 election. 43.6% voted for the Conservatives led by Boris Johnson and 32.2% voted for the Labour party. Only 66.8% of the electorate voted though so the Conservatives won with the support of 29.1% of the electorate. Out of 650 PMs only nine had the support of 50% or more of their electorate.

In the July 2024 UK election the Labour Party took power despite an even lower 20.13% of the electorate voting for them. In November 2024 presidential election in the US Trump was elected by 36.93% of the US electorate.

In the US the political system is complicated by an apparently inexplicable ‘Electoral College’ system which might once have had meaning but now means a voter in one area has more impact than a voter in a different area. In the last Presidential election:
Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.
Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote.
58% voted so in practice Trump now represents 28% of US voters.
Added to the controversy are claims of voters not being able to be able to vote due to lack of proof of eligibility.

Again in 2020 there was little change except a far greater percentage of the electorate voted this time. There was a 66.7% turnout and the vote share was 51.3% for Biden and 48.7% for Trump. Taking non-voters into account Biden represents 34.2% of the US electorate.

Who actually chooses the candidates? Certainly not the people. Corporate sponsors choose candidates for Congress and Senate in the US. In the UK anyone may stand for an election if they meet the citizenship or residence requirements but a fee of £500 is demanded to discourage those who stand little chance of election. Without the means to fund a campaign any candidate stands little chance. In the US religion plays a big part too with the odds stacked heavily against declared atheists. It has been said that to be elected in the US you must be either stupid or a liar. (i.e. not stupid enough to say you are an atheist).

So how can we improve things? Here’s my suggestions:

• Use a proportionate representation election system. That’s where you rate the candidates in the order of your choice.
• Offer a ‘Non of the Above’ choice on the ballots. That way the eventual winner would get a clear indication of how much he/she truly represents the electorate.
• Follow the UK system for standing for office. That means:
• You must be a citizen or citizen of a dependency who does not require leave to enter or remain in the country, and has indefinite leave to remain in the country. 
• Must not be members of the police forces
• Must not be members of the armed forces
• Must not be Civil servants, judges or others who sit and can vote in an unelected house of representatives
• Must not be subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or a debt relief restrictions order
• In addition candidates must pay a registration fee equivalent to 1% of their last available tax year income with a limitation that that income must be published within the last five years.
• Any citizen or person who has had indefinite leave to remain in the country for the last two years may vote if their permanent residence is in the UK. Those who live permanently in the country should have the right to vote on policy.
• If you don't vote then a half vote should be awarded to the current incumbent or if that person isn't standing the person chosen by a nominated successor. If you don't like that - then vote.
• Voting should be done electronically, securely and via Internet or at a public library with Internet access. A voter card should be mailed to electors prior to elections OR a valid photo ID may be used to enter the voting system.
• Elected representatives must first have a duty to represent their electorate before any duty to a political party. Any elector has the right to gather support to make the views of the electorate known to their representative. Parliamentary votes should  not use whips in more than 30% of votes. 
• Representatives should have a primary duty to represent the interests of their constituents rather than the wishes of a party.
• No lobby may offer any incentive to any candidate or representative. Doing so should be punishable by law as bribery and penalties should be severe. Lobbies may offer a contribution to a central fund for the benefit of the poor in a representatives area but that fund must not be controlled by the representative or his/her family or friends.
• If a representative is found to have lied to or misled the population or governing body then at the next election they or their nominated successor should have 2% of their votes in the next election shared amongst other candidates. This measure should encourage honesty and fact checking in representatives. (Had this been in force in the 2019 Parliament, Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister, would have lost his constituency majority after making 14 misleading statements in Parliament.)
• No religion may be involved in government in any way either as candidates or as influences in elections. However religion may gather support to make their views known to representatives.
• In representative bodies the rule should be that no law with less than 75% support in that body should be passed. If a law cannot gather that level of support it is a bad law.
• Representatives should not argue against any proposal unless they can offer an improved proposal.
• Indirect taxation should be weighted to 'wants' rather than 'needs'. The poor shouldn't be forced to pay extra for the things they have to buy - housing, food, utilities, basic clothing.
• Any laws which affect the available income of the electorate should be applied on a percentage basis of elector’s income but should not be applied to those deemed in poverty. This means a 5% tax would not apply to those in poverty. A $5 reduction of income to someone with $100 is disastrous and has a much greater effect to the poor than a $5,000 cut in income to someone with $100,000

• Government may act immediately in defence of the nation BUT any decision to take aggressive action outside the nation's borders must require a referendum of the people. In referendums  the half vote status quo rule should be applied to non-voters on the basis that those who don't vote are not unhappy with the status quo.

The most informative politics survey ever!

I just came across an astonishing survey about the UK election campaign. Apparently some genius at the Daily Star decided to ask women aged 20 - 30 which of the three party leaders they would prefer to kiss. Predictably just 3% chose Gordon Brown (left) 14.9% said they would choose to kiss David Cameron (right) and 16.9% chose Nick Clegg (centre).

Now doing a little math that adds up to just 34.8% meaning 65.2% would choose NOT to kiss any of them. Considering that each of them has about as much sex appeal as a home made bar of soap I'm not surprised. It did however make me curious so I did my own survey and offered an alternative choice.




You've guessed it 60% chose to kiss the donkey!


Girl & donkey image by Délirante Bestiole & used under the creative commons licence.

Postscript A Year Later
Remarkably the Daily Star came up with a formula for determining the eventual outcome. Together David and Nick proved much more popular than poor Gordon and as a result formed a coalition government.

I gave some thought to putting up a donkey candidate who would undoubtedly have been a clear winner but in the end decided that I would probably be wasting my money on the basis that parliament has enough donkeys there already.

Is our new parliament any better? Not a jot, still the same old braying. Of course there is a logical solution to the country's woes

Politics - I'm a Democratic Anarchist

I suppose that if I were to describe my political beliefs I would say I am a democratic anarchist.

Now that seems to be a bit of a contradiction doesn't it? Let me explain. This refers to the UK but I'm pretty sure it also applies to the US and every other 'democracy':

When I was a child my parents voted Conservative so naturally I began to think I was one too. The trouble was I wasn't quite sure exactly what a Conservative was. I still don't because for the life of me there seems to be little difference now between the three major political parties in the UK where I live.

In the old days Conservatives stood for:

• Private enterprise
• Land/Home ownership
• A strong belief in the right to get rich
• A strong military
• Private schools

The Labour party stood for:

• Nationalised major industry
• A welfare state
• Public housing
• State run schools
• Powerful unions
• A strong belief that the rich should pay taxes at a higher rate than the poor
• Less spending on 'defence' (well that's the word they used but really they meant 'offence')

The Liberal party stood for:

• Anything they thought could get votes

Now it's all changed. They all seem to want:

• Anything that will get votes
• Anything that will prove just how bad the 'other lot' is.
• The media to dig up scandal about X in the 'other lot'.

If you listen to them in Parliament - well there seems to be little debate - just a slanging match with each side saying how bad the 'other lot' is. Seldom do we hear an MP from one party saying what a good idea the other party has had!

Now I want a political party which represents not the party but me. I'm darn sure that at the moment none of them do that. Not one MP has ever asked me for my views or ever responded if I give them. I know that every few years we have elections but what sort of choice is that? I may like ideas from different parties! If I've needed help from my representative they always seem to be on holiday. I don't need a representative in Parliament - I need one in my local area.

In this era of Information Technology it seems stupidity to send all representatives to a central location at great expense. What's wrong with video conferencing? We wouldn't need massive security or a fortune spent on travelling and maintaining two homes.
Here's what I would like to see:

• Close down Parliament - it can become a tourist centre. Maybe a good place for comedians to practice in.
• MPs work at home - in their constituencies and talk to each other by video conferencing.
• Use the money saved to pay them more! They don't get nearly enough. Let's give them a 1000% pay rise in the hope that the increased money will attract someone to the job that can actually do it.
• In a few years we can forget paying MPs - just give them a share of the profits of running the country. If they can't run at a profit- they shouldn't be doing the job.
• Pay for several well qualified assistants to help each MP who can act on their behalf.
• Scrap the party system - their job is to represent the views of their constituents. Each MP could vote for ministers and Prime minister.
• Stop criticising others and keep quiet unless you can put forward a better idea.
• Use Internet to communicate with those who elect you. Actually listen to them! When you need to vote on an issue you should vote as directed by your constituents in an online constituency referendum.
• Maybe one day we can do without representatives altogether and each do it ourselves.

So that's what I mean by 'democratic anarchist'. It's a true democracy where everyone can take a part in making decisions - if they want to.

As to politicians - well anyone who wants to be one is very probably the least suitable for the job.
Any disappointed anarchists of the 'blow them all up' type should follow this link