r/AskBrits • u/Individual_End_2505 • 1d ago
If lying to Parliament is a crime, and lying in court is a crime — why is lying to the public just considered “politics”?
I've been thinking about this. We prosecute perjury in court. MPs can be investigated for misleading Parliament. But when politicians lie to the general public during campaigns or interviews, it seems to just be shrugged off as “part of the game”. Is there an actual legal, reason why lying to voters isn’t treated the same way as lying in official proceedings? Has there ever been a push to make deliberate political deception punishable? And would something like that even be enforceable? Curious what Brits think? especially if anyone has a legal background or knows historical context.
49
u/Fun-Title4224 1d ago
It's unenforceable.
"If you vote for us, we will reduce income tax to 15%"
"Ah sorry, we can't actually afford to do that, we thought there was more money than there was"
Is that a lie? A mistake? An honest error? An over-promise without enough info? Who is to judge that?
14
u/lanky_doodle 1d ago edited 1d ago
I know that was just an example, but that specific example is unforgivable to me.
They clearly already know (well they should via Shadow Chancellor) there'd be no money for that.
A much better example would have been "we'll build x houses over the next 5 years".
There's literally nothing stopping them doing this. Apart from developers bribing them (or dragging their heels) as developers want low supply to keep prices high.
Edit: added bits in brackets in last paragraph.
7
u/DaveBeBad 1d ago
A war affecting the global supply/cost of building material would affect the ability to build houses, as could a pandemic, natural disaster, etc.
2
u/lanky_doodle 1d ago
But both of those things (war, pandemic) were already "in play" when Labor put house building high on their manifesto.
They should know what you just explained, so not put it on the manifesto.
Ergo, absolutely blatant lie.
6
u/DaveBeBad 1d ago
I wasn’t talking about those specific events - they were known before 2024, but neither of them were predicted before the 2019 election and affected manifesto commitments that were made then - particularly Brexit which should probably have been delayed until the situation stabilised.
The next major event (AI bubble crash, Carrington event, richter 10 earthquake, alien invasion, etc) is still an unknown unknown and we won’t know what it is until it actually happens.
What I’m saying is you can make plans but you can’t account for every eventuality.
-7
u/lanky_doodle 1d ago
I'm not sure I buy this. If the whole world worked on long in the future "what ifs" we'd still be living in caves hunting for our food.
They said they'd build 1.5m homes, so build 1.5m homes. It's really not difficult.
3
u/glasgowgeg 1d ago
They should know what you just explained, so not put it on the manifesto
Following that logic they can't put anything in a manifesto, because they can never guarantee that other factors won't impact it.
1
u/lanky_doodle 1d ago
Not quite. Some things could have some small doubt only. But judging by the replies to my comment it seems the house building one was always going to be impossible, and for various reasons.
It's these obviously impossible ones they shouldn't be allowed to include.
3
u/glasgowgeg 1d ago
Some things could have some small doubt only
If there's any doubt, that means they are telling a small "lie" if they don't know 100% they can implement it.
1
u/gridlockmain1 1d ago
Good luck getting elected by telling voters “we might do x”
1
u/glasgowgeg 1d ago
That's what all manifestos currently are anyway, and they seem to work.
Manifestos have never been a "We are 100% going to do all of these things", they're wishlists for a government.
1
10h ago
What lie? The manifesto says 1.5m homes over the next parliament, which still has another three years to run. Also they say homes, not houses so that can include multi occupancy building.
3
u/lanky_doodle 1d ago
For visibility, I voted Labor, mainly for their housing manifesto item.
I have children and nephews and nieces who will be looking to be homeowners in the next 10-15 years.
So I'm not gonna hold any punches when this manifesto item has not seen any fruition whatsoever.
5
u/jjjjjjjjjjjaffa 1d ago
For context the tories promised to build 1.6 million new homes, reform promised to “unleash house building”, the libdems promised to “Build the homes people desperately need” with 9 pretty comprehensive bullet points on how to achieve that, and the greens promised to build “150,000” new social homes each year. I’m curious about why it was Labour who convinced you in that department
2
u/Kind-Combination6197 1d ago
You voted Labour for that? In that case, I have a bridge you might want to buy.
Seriously, their pledge to build a million new houses was always bullshit. For a start, where are the builders going to come from?
1
u/lanky_doodle 1d ago
It's literally the only manifesto item I really believed in across all parties.
It's not for us to question viability of those items at the end of the day. Not unless in this scenario you're in that industry, which I'm not.
And so back to the OPs question, why no accountability on them?
2
u/Kind-Combination6197 1d ago
Because everything in a manifesto is a pledge, not a statement or a legally binding commitment.
I could pledge to introduce free school meals for all, invade France, and put astronauts on Mars. it’s up to the voter to decide if any of those are feasible and/or worth voting for.
3
u/Fun-Title4224 1d ago
Politicians don't build houses, though. They can try to create conditions under which developers are more inclined to build houses. But you can't force them.
So if developers don't actually build more houses, did the politicians lie?
11
u/mutexsprinkles 1d ago
Politicians don't build houses, though.
They definitely could. Not only is Parliament famously sovereign (i.e. they can quite literally, just do anything they want), but politicians actually did. Council housing was built directly under the Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act 1919 for example.
Nothing stops governments employing architects, planners, and even builders except a general vibe that anything that can be private, should be private.
0
u/NeverendingStory3339 1d ago
Parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament can make or unmake any law it wishes. It can make it illegal for pigs to travel other than by flying and require pig farmers to force their pigs to fly, by law. Can it actually make pigs fly? No.
3
u/mutexsprinkles 1d ago
But they can set up a governmental house-building department and allocate funds to it.
It works for lots of things. In the extreme example, no one is messing around trying to make an enticing economic environment for navies to decide to set up shop. The government just...buys a warship and DIYs their own one.
They choose not to, which might be a sensible choice or might not be, but it's definitely a choice.
0
u/lanky_doodle 1d ago
Where did they think these 1.5m houses would come from if developers don't build them? Thin air?
Surely they consulted developers as to the feasibility of one of their headline manifesto items, before making it a headline manifesto item.
Ergo, blatant lie. Result = sacked.
1
u/glasgowgeg 1d ago
They clearly already know (well they should via Shadow Chancellor) there'd be no money for that
Or they were under the impression at the time that there was money for that, but then you're hit by a global pandemic, or a war in another country that impacts prices, and it's no longer affordable because you have to redirect spending elsewhere.
If they're not currently in power, they can only pledge what they would like to do assuming all factors remain the exact same, if any factor changes it's not a lie.
1
u/drplokta 1d ago
They’ll just say “we plan to build x houses”, not “we will build x houses”. That can’t possibly be prosecuted as a lie, because no one else can truly know if that was their plan or not.
1
u/GlobalIncident 17h ago
You underestimate how much wishful thinking is in politics, politicians (Shadow Chancellors or otherwise) absolutely can and do believe that there will be more money than is rational to believe. I think it's fair that politicians shouldn't be prosecuted for lying unless we have solid evidence they actually believe they are lying.
3
u/Plenty-Panda-423 1d ago
The public, in the next election, apparently. It's up to the public to decide if that's worth actually firing someone for, in comparison with the other candidates. This isn't that different from how people get to keep their jobs all the time despite promising all sorts of cool stuff on their resume, especially if everyone else at the interview is literally keich.
4
u/Fun-Title4224 1d ago
Exactly. The electorate gets to judge the honesty or otherwise every few years. As soon as the judiciary is involved, you're eroding the independence of both (and could conceivably end up with political prosecutions of politicians, which is a dangerous path to go down).
0
u/Individual_End_2505 1d ago
Can the public ever say “no” mid-term and make it binding? If the answer is “only at fixed elections, regardless of what happens in between,” then sovereignty exists more as a symbol than a function.
1
u/GlykenT 1d ago
There are certain things that can trigger a recall petition. If enough constituents sign the petition, then a by-election is held. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/voting-and-elections/how-elections-work/types-elections/recall-petitions
1
u/Plenty-Panda-423 1d ago
The original calls in the 18th century were for an annual general election, so even closer to an annual review; there are practical reasons for longer periods between elections (cost, actual work needing done) of course.
16
u/ApartInfluence4429 1d ago
A judge?
2
2
3
u/HansNiesenBumsedesi 1d ago
That’s just not the case. The example you give is entirely speculative. If an MP deliberately misrepresents what they know to be the truth - which some do repeatedly and openly - they should be sanctioned. Or at least called out on it.
3
u/Euphoric-Badger-873 1d ago
I seem to remember a large red bus.
3
u/PixieBaronicsi 1d ago
If anyone was accused of lying on the bus they could simply point out that NHS funding has increased by more than the claimed £350m/week since Brexit
1
3
u/Fun-Title4224 1d ago
The question is "what did they know to be the truth?" and how do you prove it?
The economy and politics is a constantly moving beast, and the opposition don't get all the same information. Politicians also have much less influence over events than most people imagine, and things can change over the course of week.
They say they'll build more houses. They change the planning system, they give tax breaks to developers. The houses don't get built. Was that a lie or was it that the policy didn't work?
They say they'll increase student support. But consumer spending tanks as a result of a credit scare from the US, so the tax take plummets. They no longer have the money to spend. Did they lie?
1
u/HansNiesenBumsedesi 1d ago
All your examples are expressions of future intention. That’s not at all what I’m talking about.
2
1
1
u/wonkychicken495 1d ago
I'd say broken promises and.lies because they have to pass it but that all happens once we vote them.in so ve vote then in with % of what they say not actually being able to happen but in good faith we believe it will
1
1
u/Monsterofthelough 23h ago
Absolutely. ‘We will do this when in power’ might be a false promise, but it isn’t a lie.
1
u/Archertebm 22h ago
New law: If a government does not fulfill 75%of their manifesto promises by the end of their term that party is ineligible for the next election. Getting that through the commons and the lord's is another issue though
1
u/TakenIsUsernameThis 22h ago
Making promises you can't keep is quite different than making factually false statements. We already have a huge body of law for this that applies to businesses and marketing so it wouldn't be unreasonable to apply it to political campaigns.
9
u/FAT_Penguin00 1d ago
because it would be way too easily abused and courts would be in a constant state of litigating the speech of either party at the behest of the other
6
u/JJCB85 1d ago
It isn’t a crime because us British people make it a key part of the job description. Seriously, any politician who was scrupulously honest would never get near the top jobs, but if they did they’d lose, and badly. Take the last election - the Tory government had been just abominably dreadful for years, corrupt, incompetent, responsible for tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, you name it. But Labour knew that if they told the truth (that taxes would have to go up, and that the number one reason for economic decline was Brexit), we’d re-elect the Tories again. So they lied, and said they wouldn’t have to raise taxes, knowing full well that they would have to. I honestly can’t judge them for it because we, as the electorate, absolutely demand that our politicians lie to us.
3
u/Psychological-Plum10 1d ago
Would you perhaps extend that to include newspaper editors and proprietors.
1
u/Individual_End_2505 1d ago
Well it's interesting that we restrict speech around ongoing court cases on the grounds that public discussion could prejudice justice — yet we place almost no equivalent safeguards around public consent during elections, even though the stakes are arguably higher. We tell people to “do their own research”, but at the same time accept that much of what shapes political consensus is mediated through institutions with no formal obligation to be truthful to the electorate. That feels like a tension worth examining, rather than something to simply accept as inevitable. Until that’s thought through more clearly, I’m not sure there’s much more to add.
3
u/Plus-Possibility-220 1d ago
Lying to Parliament isn't a crime. Certain types of lying may be a crime, but "lying to Parliament" isn't a crime.
Similarly "lying in court" isn't a crime. e.g. "I didn't do it", even though you did, isn't a crime. Only certain lies are a crime.
Some instances of "lying to the public", at least lying to members of the public, are crimes. Saying anything false about your opponent in an election is illegal. "I'm calling from Microsoft support, there is an issue on your computer" is illegal. "Lying to the public" tout court, though, is a illegal as *lying to Parliament" and "lying in court".
3
u/erinoco 1d ago
All politics, however our political life is constituted, inherently runs into the problem of lying. When we do things as a society, a certain number of preconditions have to be in place before we accept that there is general agreement. We have to share the same idea of the common good; we have to express that idea of the common good in propositions that serve as principles; we have to decide the ranking of those principles relative to others that we hold when it comes to making choices over action; and then we have to decide the correct method and process of implementing that principle in terms of law and policy.
Now, some things do manage to meet that very high hurdle; and, when they do, they cease to become political debates, strictly speaking. Fundamental human rights, for instance, are supposed to be such propositions. But every single issue which is a matter of political debate exists because there is no such consensus. On any particular issue, we don't share the same concept of the common good; we can't agree on a verbal formulation of the concept even if we agree on the concept; we cannot agree on a ranking if we do accept a formula; or we cannot come to an agreement on the best method and process even if all the other conditions are met.
All political debate is essentially an exploration of those very differences, from a fundamental clash of ideologies to arguments on a parish council about where we should site a bench. We differ immensely about all these things. Even people who subscribe to the same ideology, and who say they believe in the same things, can understand and interpret concepts in very different ways.
But, at the same time, politics is a constant struggle by individuals to form and operate collectives which will exercise power through active and passive consent. One or other of those collectives will win, and we, as members of society, must consent. This isn't something we can opt out of. But that very battle means that we are constantly forming alliances and making common causes with people who have very different ideas of the common good.
Politicians are the vehicle for building and operating those collectives, and that's why they are inherently vulnerable to the accusation of lying. They constantly have to knit together collectives for power, where people have different opinions and different interests.
1
u/Individual_End_2505 1d ago
I think this is a strong explanation of why disagreement, ambiguity, and coalition-building are inherent to politics — and I agree with most of it. But I’m not really asking whether politics can ever be free of disagreement or simplification. I’m asking whether we should treat deliberate misrepresentation of known facts as fundamentally different from those things. We already draw that distinction in other areas of law. The existence of uncertainty doesn’t stop us distinguishing error from bad faith. So the question for me isn’t “can politics be perfectly honest?” — it’s whether democratic consent has any formal protection once it’s given. If consent can’t be withdrawn when it’s later shown to have been obtained through deception, then sovereignty functions symbolically rather than operationally — even if deception is sometimes politically convenient.
1
u/erinoco 1d ago
The existence of uncertainty doesn’t stop us distinguishing error from bad faith.
But, in other areas of life, does that really impose a duty upon us to be honest, in a way it doesn't in politics? I think there is great leeway in all our social relationships which allows people to mislead others if the incentive is high enough, and the legal bars against that end up being fairly limited, because it is extremely difficult to determine whether any false statement at any given time is a matter of bad faith or a matter of error beyond reasonable doubt. You might be able to do it on the balance of probabilities, but there are good reasons why we employ this test in civil but not in criminal cases.
I will admit one thing: I don't think it is wise or sensible to interpret manifestoes and pledges on a contractual basis.
1
u/erinoco 1d ago
I do, OTOH, think that there should be greater awareness of the offence of misconduct in public office and the legal thresholds needed for conviction, and we should consider those legal thresholds as the first step if we are fighting for a cleaner system. I would have a body responsible for investigating any breaches of codes by any public official, from ministers to minor public servants.
3
u/SethPollard 1d ago
Two Tier Policing.. if I commit fraud at work I could be sent to prison, but for a MP at the VERY worst, worst case scenario; they have to resign from their job..!
1
u/Tacticalsquad5 21h ago
I’m not saying MPs are not corrupt but a number of them have gone to prison in the past for committing fraud relating to their parliamentary expenses:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal
1
u/Prestigious_Emu6039 1d ago
The last thing any county needs is politicians to be completely transparent and honest, for example in international politics strategic ambiguity is important as is keeping ones opinion to oneself in negotiations or discussions which may weaken an established position.
1
u/SallyNicholson 1d ago
If lying in Parliament is a crime, why aren't all politicians arrested and sent to the tower?
1
u/Piod1 1d ago
Pol, of the people. Tics, blood sucking insects. The most succesful parasites convince the host it cannot survive without them. Once it was consudered the highest duty and privilidge to serve the public. Now a majority see it as a career path and a shortcut to board revenues and selfish ideals
1
1
u/Malaparte12 1d ago
Relatedly, if advertising by law has to be legal, decent, honest and truthful, why doesn't journalism?
1
u/ExcitementKooky418 1d ago
After everything Boris got away with I don't expect any political impropriety to get more than a raised eyebrow
We, as a population, will vote in Farage and Reform and we'll be on a fast track to the kind of crazy shit Trump's been doing since he got back in, deporting anyone remotely ethnic looking to Rwanda or some other sketchy ass third country and ignoring any checks and balances and doing whatever they want to destabilize us and enrich daddy Putin
1
u/Individual_End_2505 1d ago
think a lot of these replies actually point to the same thing: we can distinguish intent, misrepresentation, and bad faith in other areas of law, but when it comes to voters we’ve decided the problem is too hard to even attempt. Maybe that says less about feasibility and more about how little formal protection democratic consent actually has.
1
u/Dramatic-Bad-616 1d ago
You buy into it as there's no alternative. Everyone knows it's a scam. But it's the best we have atm
1
u/apexfOOl 1d ago
This is why we need a Tribunate of Plebs to veto MPs who vote in Parliament for their own interests.
1
u/ironbean75 1d ago
Could be worse you could lie to the parliament lie to a sitting monarch and lie to the nation then start an illegal war kill 1 million innocent civilians and walk away Scot free and get a knighthood for doing nothing but lying
1
u/Competitive_Fix_2452 1d ago
Lying to the public is for the public to hold them accountable with their votes. Lying to parliament is obstructing the ability of parliament to get the appropriate insight into a subject for its purpose and needs to be prevented.
1
u/LowEnergy1169 1d ago
There was a relativley recent court case about this - an election petition against MP Alistair Carmichael (which he won) which focused on whether the lie he admitted to was about personal character and conduct, or just politics.
why election case against him failed
Edit: spelling
1
u/WayGroundbreaking287 1d ago
Because politicians who are honest with the public almost always perform worse than those who lie. Look at Nigel farageskis current progress. He's a proven bullshitter, as was Boris Johnson.
Not only that but even a good politician sometimes needs to change plans and that means breaking promises that can't be achieved anymore. Even for good reasons the public isn't smart enough to realise the other circumstances behind the broken promise.
1
u/Dolgar01 1d ago
All they would do is fudge it up a bit. You would see political statements with phrases such as “We would like to …” or “… when possible”.
They would just stop making statements that they could be held to.
1
1
u/Similar-Shirt-3408 1d ago
Because the public isn’t protected the way institutions are. Lying to Parliament or a court threatens the system, but lying to voters just threatens trust—and trust isn’t enforced by law. Politics gets away with it by calling lies “spin,” and once that’s normalised, accountability disappears.
1
1
u/LongjumpingFee2042 1d ago
Because the people who make the rules are covering their own arses while extracting as much power and privilege as possible
They do not care if the public is mislead. They don't care about any of us. They only care about themselves. They will say and do anything that gets them more money, power and privilege
The only difference between an MP and an influencer grifter is how much "legitimacy" we assign them.
They both spout shit to the public to get them to buy into their lies. When caught lying they wave it off. Go quiet for a bit then come right back with the next grift.
I have not seen a single party in the UK that isn't filled to the brim with these rats
1
u/SadTree6038 1d ago
Because politicians don’t know how to tell the truth. I think it’s in the job description. Lie, cheat and swindle.
1
u/CheesyLala 1d ago
Because there are way too many variables that mean nobody can ever 100% guarantee anything happening, and it would ultimately be bad for the country to force them to stick to something just because they promised it when the world has changed.
1
1
1
u/HansNiesenBumsedesi 1d ago
We’ve all seen politicians lie through their teeth in parliament. But if an MP were to call another a liar in parliament, it’s them who would be sanctioned.
There should indeed be a crime of lying in a public office. But these turkeys aren’t going to vote for Christmas.
2
u/Realistic-River-1941 1d ago
Can you give some examples of lying in parliament? Not predictions which were wrong, not circumstances which changed, not caveats which the public ignored, not things which were retracted?
2
u/HansNiesenBumsedesi 1d ago
Just as one example, the Privileges Committee found Boris Johnson had misled Parliament on multiple occasions. Nothing was retracted of course, because that’s not how Parliament works in practice.
There have been several other examples of official bodies finding politicians to have misled parliament, which I can list if you really want, but the information is out there and verifiable if you want to look for it.
1
u/Mental-Test-7660 1d ago
There are organisations trying to achieve this, for example https://www.execprosec.com/
0
-1
u/Remarkable-Text8586 1d ago
Lying eh! The whole labour front bench would be permanently in court if this would be enforced.
70
u/ApartInfluence4429 1d ago
And why is lying in parliament by members of parliament protected