• JoBo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Voters don’t get to choose who is on the ballot paper. Billionaires do.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The people who are on the ballot paper are decided by the party via whatever mechanism they wish to use.

        If you want to change vote for a party that has its members decide who’s on the ballot.

  • Echo Dot
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh I wonder how this will come out. Gosh I’m biting my nails.

  • mannycalavera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Great idea. Won’t happen though. The ministerial code already has something about this. The get out jail free card (literally) is that you have to prove intent of lying. Knowingly lied. That the key.

    You saw how hard it was to get BoJo held to account. Imagine that shit show year round. Opposition will claim MP lied. MP will deny. “I didn’t knowningly lie”. “Yea you did”. And so on and so forth.

    The principle is sound. But I can’t help thinking this is like a wrecking ammendment designed so that the sitting government (Tories in this case) say no because it will be deliberately unworkable and then for the opposition parties to go, “oh my days the Tories literally want to lie in parliament boo and hissssssss!!!”.

    Would love to see this done properly via independent parliament HR. The stress is on independent and with proper powers and fact checking.

    • Syldon
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      You miss a very pertinent point that they must correct the record at the earliest possible time. The ministerial code is also under the discretion of the PM of the day, so will only be put to a committee for discussion if he deems it necessary. This falls short when the PM himself is habitually breaking the code. Sunak as well as his ministers are again following suite by making up figures for the dispatch box, and failing to correct the record when it is pointed out.

      • mannycalavera
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah that’s all good and everything. But when would they correct the record? Could they continue to delay by saying “well at the time I said what I said because I believed it to be the truth!”.

        That’s basically what BoJo said for two years.

        • Syldon
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And Johnson lost out at the first actual investigation. As for when, they are government in control of parliamentary time. They can come back when ever they feel it is needed. The only provision would be the set hours parliament sits.

          The problem with Johnson was that it was never allowed to go beyond the verbal criticism phase. He was questioned many times in PMQs regarding his factual statements, and because he was in control of the next part of the process, it never went further than that. Moreso he had the support of the majority of MPs to back him up. Once those MPs realised that this was costing them more votes than they could possibly gain from Johnson, they marked his card. Party politics have always superseded due process when it comes to parliamentary behaviour. The control behind the adjudication needs talking away from the culprits committing the crime.

          There has never been anything so egregious in parliament in the way the Tories currently behave though. They are showing little sign of wanting to change back. They are behaving like smug school kids who have used the legal system to get one over on their teachers. It will bite them later on. What they have done will be recorded as a pertinent event to learn from in history. Much like the autopsy that the US will inevitably go through after the Trump trials. That is provided he does not defeat the litigation.

          • mannycalavera
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The control behind the adjudication needs talking away from the culprits committing the crime

            Fully agree 💯

      • mackwinston
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The courts can already do this - perjury is already a criminal offence, and people have been charged and convicted of this. The court case when someone is accused of perjury will explore things like “And what if they interpreted something incorrectly but believed they were telling the truth”. The courts will decide if the evidence shows if someone is lying, just as they do with perjury.

        The courts already know the difference between saying something misleading because you were simply wrong (that’s not lying, that’s just being wrong), and saying something misleading with the intent to mislead (lying).

    • franglais@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      No,it was a petition from 2021,it was debated, and the government response was that they have no intention of introducing legislation of this kind.

      • JoBo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was not debated in 2021. It will be debated in October 2023.

        The govt response in 2021 was because it reached the lower threshold (10,000?) for a response. Now it’s over the 100,000 required for a debate.

    • david
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well it’s not a proposed bill and so they’ll do some hand wringing and say some platitudes but nothing will come of it because the government has other priorities.

  • andresil@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Yes, I expect much change in the house of commons as a result if this debate… /s

    What the fuck is the point of these petitions anyways, never seen a single one amount to anything, and the moment they removed the ability to no confidence the PM via the petition it lost all potency.

    If you’re gonna have petitions make them proper, direct democracy style.

  • barontomatoes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    It already is… in a way.

    It is against the rules of both houses to knowingly mislead the house, and Parliament is free to punish its members up to and including imprisoning them (until dissolution, anyway).

    • TWeaK
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well that’s the point of this, if they make it a crime then they shouldn’t be able to get away with doing it.

  • butterflyattack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is one of those things that seems so obvious. I wonder if many people already believe it’s an offense.

    Of course, it’ll never happen. How many of those fuckers are likely to vote to be criminally penalised for their dishonesty? Not a lot, I’m thinking. Lying is how they make their money and consolidate their power. Wankers. It should be a criminal offense - the fact that they are allowed to lie without penalty undermines democracy. How are they supposed to make an informed and democratic vote if they’re doing so based on mendacious info?

    Also, I could be wrong about this but I have the idea in my head that the house is legally a court. And under certain circumstances, lying to a court is already criminal. So maybe this is already illegal? I’m probably wrong there, the people behind this petition surely know more than me.

  • lemonflavoured@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a daft idea, it would basically stop any politican from saying anything or making any policy announcements. The people promoting this will be annoyed when MPs treat this deabate as a joke, but it’s a completely unrealistic proposal.

    • Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes it’s completely unrealistic to tell the truth.

    • wewbull
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The key word is “knowingly”. Making a statement that is your best understanding of the situation but doesn’t turn out to be true in the fullness of time is very different to lying.

      • lemonflavoured@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        But even in that situation they would be accused of lying, so it would have to be investigated. It would massively chill speech.

        • wahming@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Given the alternative of having them make outright lies, i.e. regarding the benefits of Brexit? I’m OK with that

    • abrasiveteapot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      would basically stop any politician from saying anything

      So you’re saying that it is impossible for a politician to speak without lying ?

      I don’t care who you normally vote for, would you mind sitting the next election out ? Preferably all the ones after that too.

      • lemonflavoured@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, but I’m saying that if you make it illegal “lie” then they will say very little in case they are accused of lying.

        • abrasiveteapot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m saying that if you make it illegal “lie” then they will say very little in case they are accused of lying.

          Why the scare quotes around lie ? The word has a straight forward meaning which is already defined in House of Commons rules.i.e knowingly mislead.

          It’s not even “negligently mislead” where they say something they should have known was not true, but the much tougher test of proving they knew it wasn’t true.

          A ridiculously low bar, and yet you think even that is too high. Is this because you support politicians who have been shown regularly to knowingly mislead ?

          The majority of parliament arrive carefully well prepared with facts. It’s only a small number who deliberately lie, our former PM has been proved to be one of those.