This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/26/mps-lies-sliding-scale-alistair-carmichael

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Do our MPs lie? Yes, copiously and consistently Do our MPs lie? Yes, copiously and consistently
(about 1 hour later)
The Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael has admitted he lied over the claim that the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon wanted David Cameron to hang on in Downing Street. He didn’t invent the claim, but he did maintain that he’d known nothing about it until a journalist told him. In fact, he had authorised a minion to get it published. The Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael has admitted he lied over the claim that the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon wanted David Cameron to hang on in Downing Street. He didn’t invent the claim, but he did maintain that he’d known nothing about it until a journalist told him. In fact, he had authorised a minion to get it published.
Related: Sir Malcolm Bruce: Commons would empty very fast if lying MPs had to quitRelated: Sir Malcolm Bruce: Commons would empty very fast if lying MPs had to quit
He can’t be sacked from the cabinet, since he’s no longer in it, but he accepts that such a demotion would have been justified – and he’s forfeited the severance payment which those who lose cabinet seats are routinely paid. But does that go far enough? The SNP say he should give up his seat – the only one the Lib Dems still hold in Scotland.He can’t be sacked from the cabinet, since he’s no longer in it, but he accepts that such a demotion would have been justified – and he’s forfeited the severance payment which those who lose cabinet seats are routinely paid. But does that go far enough? The SNP say he should give up his seat – the only one the Lib Dems still hold in Scotland.
Defending Carmichael’s right to stay put on BBC radio on Tuesday, his veteran Westminster colleague Malcolm Bruce was asked if lying was widespread in public life; to which he produced the incisive reply: “No. Well, yes.”Defending Carmichael’s right to stay put on BBC radio on Tuesday, his veteran Westminster colleague Malcolm Bruce was asked if lying was widespread in public life; to which he produced the incisive reply: “No. Well, yes.”
But asked if MPs should be sacked for telling lies, he said: “If you are suggesting every MP who has never quite told the truth or even told a brazen lie, including cabinet ministers, including prime ministers, we would clear out the House of Commons very fast.” But asked if MPs should be sacked for telling lies, he said: “If you are suggesting every MP who has never quite told the truth or even told a brazen lie, including cabinet ministers, including prime ministers, we would clear out the House of Commons very fast.”
That sounds like the kind of answer that brings politics into disrepute, but in fact it’s a pretty fair summary of what everyone knows about politicians and equally (sometimes more culpably: see recent City scandals) about public performers in general. The truth, as everyone in that area knows, is that there’s a sliding scale – degrees one might say of degradation, which range from the tiddler to the absolute whopper – and worse. If every lie told by politicians, especially those uttered in parliament, where the offence is taken most solemnly, was a hanging offence, you wouldn’t be able to move at Westminster for gibbets. Related: Police investigate Alistair Carmichael's false denials over memo leak
Some dishonest parliamentary assertions amount to little more than white lies. A few degrees higher there are statements meant to be true when uttered but proven thereafter to be wholly unfounded: Nick Clegg’s stance on raising tuition fees; David Cameron’s “no ifs, no buts” pledge on cutting immigration. That sounds like the kind of answer that brings politics into disrepute, but in fact it’s a pretty fair summary of what everyone knows about politicians and equally (sometimes more culpably: see recent City scandals) about public performers in general. The truth, as everyone in that area knows, is that there’s a sliding scale – degrees one might say of degradation, which range from the tiddler to the absolute whopper – and worse. If every lie told by politicians, especially those uttered in parliament, where the offence is taken most solemnly, was a hanging offence, you wouldn’t be able to move at Westminster for gibbets.
Some dishonest parliamentary assertions amount to little more than white lies. A few degrees higher there are statements meant to be true when uttered but proven thereafter to be wholly unfounded: Nick Clegg’s stance on raising tuition fees; David Cameron’s “no ifs, no buts” pledge on cutting immigration.
Anyone who’s been a political reporter understands the routine use of tactical lyingAnyone who’s been a political reporter understands the routine use of tactical lying
Lurking somewhere in this territory too, as anyone knows who has looked at assessments by such trustworthy truth-tellers as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, is the claim that since the coalition moved against the deficit, we’ve been “all in this together”.Lurking somewhere in this territory too, as anyone knows who has looked at assessments by such trustworthy truth-tellers as the Institute for Fiscal Studies, is the claim that since the coalition moved against the deficit, we’ve been “all in this together”.
Anyone who’s been a political reporter understands the routine use of tactical lying: I’m not alone in having sat in the reporters’ gallery hearing myself denounced for having written a story “without foundation” by the very minister who – in a candid moment – let me in on a secret.Anyone who’s been a political reporter understands the routine use of tactical lying: I’m not alone in having sat in the reporters’ gallery hearing myself denounced for having written a story “without foundation” by the very minister who – in a candid moment – let me in on a secret.
Parliamentary conventions preclude an MP calling another a liar, though that rule has sometimes been flouted without rebuke – as when the Labour frontbencher Chris Bryant said in the house that Jeremy Hunt, then culture secretary, had lied to the house about his connections with the forces of Rupert Murdoch.Parliamentary conventions preclude an MP calling another a liar, though that rule has sometimes been flouted without rebuke – as when the Labour frontbencher Chris Bryant said in the house that Jeremy Hunt, then culture secretary, had lied to the house about his connections with the forces of Rupert Murdoch.
The term MPs more often resort to is one coined by Winston Churchill when he said that the term “slavery” could not be applied in a contentious issue without risking a “terminological inexactitude”. In fact, Churchill here was distinguishing such an “inexactitude” from a lie, in much the same way as the former cabinet secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, told an Australian court that in its handling of the Spycatcher case the government had been “economical with the truth”.The term MPs more often resort to is one coined by Winston Churchill when he said that the term “slavery” could not be applied in a contentious issue without risking a “terminological inexactitude”. In fact, Churchill here was distinguishing such an “inexactitude” from a lie, in much the same way as the former cabinet secretary, Sir Robert Armstrong, told an Australian court that in its handling of the Spycatcher case the government had been “economical with the truth”.
The famously unfettered Conservative minister Alan Clark refashioned that formula later, putting it up a notch or two in the mendacity league by telling the Matrix Churchill hearing on arms sales to Iraq that in answering parliamentary questions he’d been “economical with the actualité” – an answer honest enough to cause the trial to collapse.The famously unfettered Conservative minister Alan Clark refashioned that formula later, putting it up a notch or two in the mendacity league by telling the Matrix Churchill hearing on arms sales to Iraq that in answering parliamentary questions he’d been “economical with the actualité” – an answer honest enough to cause the trial to collapse.
There are not so many claims to a place in the highest echelons of political lying, where the case becomes a lasting scandal and breaks the politician who lied. The most famous case was that of John Profumo, who paid the supreme penalty not directly for his association with Christine Keeler but for lying to the house when he denied their connection.There are not so many claims to a place in the highest echelons of political lying, where the case becomes a lasting scandal and breaks the politician who lied. The most famous case was that of John Profumo, who paid the supreme penalty not directly for his association with Christine Keeler but for lying to the house when he denied their connection.
So do people in public life lie? Yes, copiously and consistently. And is Carmichael’s offence so high on the sliding scale that he deserves eviction? It certainly could be said that his lie was designed to shield him from the consequences of a breach of legitimate electoral processes.So do people in public life lie? Yes, copiously and consistently. And is Carmichael’s offence so high on the sliding scale that he deserves eviction? It certainly could be said that his lie was designed to shield him from the consequences of a breach of legitimate electoral processes.
The 1983 Representation of the People Act rates it an offence to make false statements about a candidate. In 2010, the Labour MP Phil Woolas was condemned by the election court for doing that, and had to leave politics.The 1983 Representation of the People Act rates it an offence to make false statements about a candidate. In 2010, the Labour MP Phil Woolas was condemned by the election court for doing that, and had to leave politics.
The parallel here is not exact, since Woolas impugned his constituency opponent, whereas Carmichael condoned an enterprise designed to damage a whole political party. Yet if election candidates who impugned a whole political party – as happened with Carmichael – were required to stand down, there’d be hardly any left standing at the end of an election campaign. The parallel here is not exact, since Woolas impugned his constituency opponent, whereas Carmichael condoned an enterprise designed to damage a whole political party. Yet if election candidates who impugned a whole political party – as happened with Carmichael – were required to stand down, there’d be hardly any left standing at the end of an election campaign.
Sadly, bringing politics into disrepute, which is blamed for the irresistible rise of political disillusionment – and of which the belief that politicians are habitually lying is a basic ingredient – goes unpunished in too many ways to single out this case from the rest.Sadly, bringing politics into disrepute, which is blamed for the irresistible rise of political disillusionment – and of which the belief that politicians are habitually lying is a basic ingredient – goes unpunished in too many ways to single out this case from the rest.