TLDR at the end I just post how I propose to convince the new parliament.

If polling is anything near to close. Starmer will enter parlimemt on the 5th with a landslide majority.

Time for us to remember the court case PM Johnson won for the 350m lie on a bus. The high Court simply stated.

Parliment has made no law banning lies during a campaign.

Well we really do have an opportunity to convince Starmer to change that. With Sunak and Co clearly following the last elections lead. Lieing about the civil service backing up their cost estimates.

It is time parliment tried to build confidence in election claims. This would only be practical when it comes to provable falsehoods of fact. Such as the claims made about Starmers campaign. After they have been informed the civil service did not analyse the data they used.

Unfortunately forcing a party to follow its manifesto is not really doable. And if parliment made the law. The next parliment would cancel it.

How to convince Starmer et al

OK so most will remember back in the coalition. The new government claimed to want to be responsive. So they set up an official, way for the public to request parliment do things. Resulting in parliment responding with crappy excuses every single time 10k signatures. Or a dumb argument in committee at 100k.

Now consider a new majority land slide parliment. Walking into government on July the 5th. With a social media publicised request to make it illegal for election campaigns, to continue to publish claims known to be false.

Its a simple law. If your party has received evidence that your clai is false. You must stop using it or face legal punishment.

So assuming 10k votes. The new government would need to write a response claiming they think lieing is OK.

Pretty sure the electorate can eviserate them on social media after that. Changing their mind. The new tory opposition leader. (Or Lib Dem maybe?). Would sure as he’ll leap on the new government for such a claim.

But honestly to get the response needed. 100k signatures and the parliment required to have a public committee debate on their right to lie in campaigns.

No new government with a huge majority is going to be willing to face that.

Help

If you have read this far. You will recognise, I am not great at grammar and my wording is not consise. So when it comes to writing the partition on the parliment website. Someone more skilled would be best. Or a discussion here as to the best wording etc.

Do please if this idea seem worth while. (Let’s face it what have we to lose. A few mins a day signing a partition and posting to social media over the election. )

Then please join a discussion here. To try to push this idea forward over the next month.

  • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
    14·
    5 months ago

    Starmer on July 5th:

    We’ve seen the desperation that fourteen year’s of Tory chaos has brought us. They’ve even stooped so low as to lie in order to gain votes. Now that I am your prime minister I promise I will never lie and I will work tirelessly to improve the country for everyone.

    Heckling news journo:

    What about HumanPenguin’s suggestion about making it illegal to lie in politics?

    Starmer:

    Now is not the time to introduce laws when our country is hurting, our children are hurting, our NHS is hurting after fourteen years of Tory chaos. We need to heal the division and come together. I’ve said that we won’t lie and you should just trust me.

    That’s kinda pretty much how it will go, I think.

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukOPEnglish
      8·
      5 months ago

      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.