Politics Thread!

[pogo]

Problem is Miliband tried to pick apart who knew what when last week at PMQ. And it fell utterly flat. This may be partly Miliband's fault but it's also just hard to make into something people should care about. As far as most people know Cameron made a mistake hiring Coulson, has acknowledged this, and apologised. Given that it's pretty pointless to go after him: you can't get him to apologise or take responsibility as he's done so already.

Voters don't care: it's the sort of thing that fascinates politicians and newspapers for obvious reasons but is of no interest to ordinary people. Newspapers can and will do what they want but opposition politicians should not spend any more time on this.

[gravy]

Yeah but it's kind of like Watergate; it's not the initial act that has the consequences but the lying after the fact.

Lying to parliament is pretty serious. I agree that the current opposition isn't the best at making the most of this kind of thing and one of the advantages of a coalition is you're also reducing the corners you'll get stick from on this kind of fuck up. I doubt any lib dems will kicking Cameron in the bollocks over this.

[merman]

Problem is Miliband tried to pick apart who knew what when last week at PMQ. And it fell utterly flat. This may be partly Miliband's fault but it's also just hard to make into something people should care about. As far as most people know Cameron made a mistake hiring Coulson, has acknowledged this, and apologised. Given that it's pretty pointless to go after him: you can't get him to apologise or take responsibility as he's done so already.

Voters don't care: it's the sort of thing that fascinates politicians and newspapers for obvious reasons but is of no interest to ordinary people. Newspapers can and will do what they want but opposition politicians should not spend any more time on this.

Ordinary people should be interested in a leader who lied to Parliament, and lied in his manifesto, and lied over promises that the NHS was safe in his hands.

This Government is a shambles. Latest news is that they will press ahead with privatising the Land Registry and selling off tax records - against advice from Parliament and senior officials, and against public opinion.

[pogo]

Ordinary people should be interested in a leader who lied to Parliament, and lied in his manifesto, and lied over promises that the NHS was safe in his hands.

This Government is a shambles. Latest news is that they will press ahead with privatising the Land Registry and selling off tax records - against advice from Parliament and senior officials, and against public opinion.

Thing is people don't care. People expect politicians to lie. Or at least they expect them to make promises and not keep them, to change their minds over polices once in office, etc.. Manifestos are not detailed programmes of what will happen over the next five years, they can't be.

When they do get it badly wrong, as here, then all they can do is admit to it and apologise. Which has already happened. There may be some question over the precise detail of what happened seven years ago but it doesn't matter, people don't care. The criminal case has concluded and there's little more that can be done to anyone involved.

And 'against public opinion'? Do you really think the public cares about the fate of the Land Registry?? This is the first I'd heard about this and I tend to follow politics more closely than most. It's simply not relevant to most people and oppositions focus on it at their peril. There are far more important things on voters minds.

[Harlequin]

I suspect many people might care if the Prime Minister is convicted of perjury.

[venusian]

I suspect many people might care if the Prime Minister is convicted of perjury.

But it'll only go to court if forced, and it'll only be forced if the media make a thing of it, and the media will only make a thing of it if they think it will sell papers, and it'll only sell papers if there're furriners or sex involved. It's not in the interests of any of the parties to start subjecting MPs to very much scrutiny, the expenses scandal has taught them that.

[pogo]

What?? Perjury is lying under oath. Is there any evidence that the PM has done this? I doubt it as if there were there would be calls for him to be prosecuted that would be impossible to ignore.

It's not a crime to lie. It's an occupational hazard for politicians for all sorts of reasons, and they're judged at the ballot box on it. But it's not a criminal offence.

[gravy]

What?? Perjury is lying under oath. Is there any evidence that the PM has done this?

Have you read the original story? It's about Cameron lying under oath

I doubt it as if there were there would be calls for him to be prosecuted that would be impossible to ignore.

This getting a bit circular

keep up mate

[(o)(o)]

Voters don't care.

The general public are numbed and dis-empowered due to techniques along the lines of shock-doctrine theory and a lack of true democratic process. Totally intentional and by that I don't mean politicians and corporate leaders are secretly sitting in boardrooms overtly scheming (self delusion is presumably prolific) rather more of a hive mentality resulting in those drivers being applied.

[(o)(o)]

This is from 2013.

http://www.greenbenchesuk.com/2013/10/l ... erons.html

[pogo]

Have you read the original story? It's about Cameron lying under oath

Ah, Levenson. But that's not perjury by any stretch of the definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty—instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) which are material to the outcome of the proceeding.

It's fair to criticise him, but given that he's already admitted his fault (in employing Coulson) and apologised it's unclear what pursuing it will achieve.

[(o)(o)]

Have you read the original story? It's about Cameron lying under oath

...But that's not perjury by any stretch of the definition

"Perjury is lying under oath."

FUCK SAKE.

[pogo]

Yeah, I was confused. I thought Leveson didn't count as it's an inquiry. But the key distinction is that perjury only arises when you lie to gain some material advantage. E.g Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer, both were convicted of perjury after lying during previous libel cases they had brought.

So Cameron can't be prosecuted for perjury. He's already accepted responsibility for hiring Coulson and apologised for it, so it's difficult to imagine anything else can happen to him. Leveson's finished and reported, the criminal trials are done (barring a retrial), there's nothing to be gained going on about this.

(This is different from the US where the requirement that perjury has to be to gain advantage is much weaker. Or at least it often seems the case that the system is set up to try and catch people in a lie, no matter how immaterial and inconsequential. E.g. depositions and grand juries take place before trials there and take sworn statements/testimony which can be used at trial months later)

[gravy]

Yeah, I was confused. I thought Leveson didn't count as it's an inquiry. But the key distinction is that perjury only arises when you lie to gain some material advantage. E.g Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer, both were convicted of perjury after lying during previous libel cases they had brought.

No, I'm pretty sure that's wrong. If you lie in court to get someone else out of trouble without any financial gain yourself I'm pretty sure you've perjured yourself.

The material aspect is about whether your lies affect the outcome, not if you get any advantage from it.

EDIT:

Yeah -> http://lexisweb.co.uk/sub-topics/perjury

Cameron can wriggle off the hook by saying he'd wasn't aware he was being a lying cunt though

[pogo]

I think that's the point of "material gain": it doesn't have to be financial and it doesn't specify who benefits (that would be "personal gain"), but it has to be significant.

The only plausible benefit of Cameron misleading the inquiry was to his own reputation. I.e. he said what he said to make himself look better, make it look like he did due diligence. Not worth prosecuting over, especially since he's admitted he was wrong to hire Coulson and apologised, effectively cancelling out any claim to have done a good job of checking up on Coulson.

Or put it this way: if every time a sworn witness lied under oath they were prosecuted our courts would quickly be clogged with cases, to no real benefit. It would do little to make witnesses more reliable; I'm sure most expect they won't get caught in a lie.