Contempt for the people - exposing the liars

Started 06JAN25-v0.2
Updated 28FEB25
revised by grok

The ease with which this publishing platform can be updated tempts authors to continuously tweak, but we resist this as far as possible - and wait until there are substantive updates, and apply a new publication date which will move it back up the blog listings. The occasional hyperlinks seem to be appreciated by those willing to disappear down rabbit holes.    

But the vast subject of politicians struggling to tell the truth is a perennial challenge for various reasons:

1: Politicians have been avoiding telling the truth for thousands of years.
2: When asked to comment, even AI concedes that there is a general acceptance of politicians lying is beyond the reach of the law. Copilot says quite candidly...

" It's a frustrating reality, isn't it? Politicians often operate in a grey area where the line between truth and falsehood can blur. In many countries, freedom of speech protects politicians from legal consequences for lying, as long as they don't commit perjury or defamation. This means they can make misleading statements without facing legal repercussions. However, the court of public opinion can be a powerful force, and voters have the ability to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box. It's a complex issue, but one that highlights the importance of critical thinking and fact-checking in our political discourse."

3: Aphorisms don't get much better than this: 
   Q:"How can you tell when a politician is lying?"
   A: Their lips move.

So politicians and public servants seem immune to the consequences of their tendency to "reimagine the truth." The evidence that politicians escape accountability for their lies, including those perpetuated by "the Narrative," is undeniable. These lies often relate to topics that are the subject of conspiracy theories, showing general contempt for both truth and the public. When confronted head on with their whoppers they occasionally respond outrageously - when challenged that he called Zelenskyy a dictator, The Donald replied, almost with a twinkle in his eye:  "Did I say that? I can't believe I said that. Next question,"  

Given his willingness to double down on contentious matters, it would take a brave reporter or interviewer to try and nail him over this reimagining of what was until that moment regarded as the apparent truth; and given the murky circumstances of recent Ukraine elections and the imposition of wartime martial law, there is no easy way to respond. Observers of real politick will sigh and note this as another classic Trumpism for the archives. And so the world is kept usefully off-balance awaiting the next nudge.  There is something of stage magician's skill with audience misdirection going on here...

There is a general rule of thumb that suggests the senior politicians can get away with the biggest whoppers more readily than underlings.  Boris Johnson managed to bluster and charm his way through political minefields that blew limbs off his bag carriers.
Keir Starmer's consummate skill at bare-faced lying owes much to his legal advocacy background. He was supposed to clean up politics and even manages to seem indignant that his veracity is questioned - so remind yourself of Twitter's James Melville's highlights compilation.  "Starmer lied to farmers, pensioners, students, WASPI women, council tax payers, energy bill payers and many other groups. The ultimate snake oil salesman."

Thus, WOTE proposes a new branch of "equity law" for moral guidance tailored to the shifting realities of the 21st century regarding variable respect for the truth. We live in a "post-truth age" where politicians and lawyers routinely present enormous falsehoods, seemingly with an assumed dispensation from any requirement for telling the truth. If all lawyers were obligated to tell the truth, there would be no need for juries to determine which set of lies was least credible. Therefore, there should be two new offences: "contempt for the truth" and "contempt for the public." Those in positions of power, including judiciary members, politicians, media, lawyers, and public servants, would be required to acknowledge and explain when they've been caught lying, and they would be publicly tagged.

Non-cooperation would lead to an assumption of guilt, resulting in public shaming on a "wall of shame." Lies would be categorized from "genuine misunderstanding" to "banged to rights," with a weighting factor to assess the real-world impact of the lie. This would affect their "credibility credit rating," potentially with public opinion tested through a Twitter vote.

Initially, no specific sanctions beyond naming and shaming are proposed. Lies and truths would be listed together, making the arrogance visible for public scrutiny. If individuals or organizations are wrongly accused, they can seek recourse through traditional laws concerning libel and defamation. This system could be likened to an extended version of community notes combined with trust pilot, especially since many AI and fact-checker platforms appear biased by disinformation agendas. 

The finest propaganda, as exemplified by students of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda master, is 99% truth mixed with 1% potent lies and deliberate malice.

This will undoubtedly be contentious, but action must be taken to make an effort to restore respect for the truth and set examples.

The level of misinformation we've witnessed, especially since the Pandemic, where fake news and disinformation were sanctioned under the guise of the greater good and/or  public interest, is staggering. This misinformation has been associated with events like the pandemic, Net Zero policies, the Rotherham abuse scandal, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the Stockport terrorist attack, and the yet-to-be-revealed truths about Ukraine financial scandals.  Maybe even the much heralded appearance of the Epstein files.

Finally, the real motives behind Rachel Reeves' plans to nationalize UK farming land, the last significant asset not under government control, are becoming clear. These plans seem to be a strategy to raise funds for the government's faltering economic policies by selling the land to private equity funds, reminiscent of Blair and Brown's PFI (Private Finance Initiative) schemes.

Expect similar revelations around Angela Rayner's fantasy housing policy.

*WoteFix- is an initiative to highlight discussion topics and subjects that need fixing but are not policy documents (WOTE will not be "owning" specific policy, remember?) but deserve to be noted and discussed with politicians who are smart enough to acknowledge and understand the significant bond of trust represented by the Wote Pledge.

The original version of this post was discussed by a Google AI bot that turned it into a podcast. The updates do not obviate this debate, which continues to make fascinatuing listening... If your mind is not totally boggled by this, then check you still have a pulse...