What can we do to stop politicians lying to us in future campaigns?

[OneArt]

I understand that politicians make false promises, stretch the truth, cherry pick the information they present, and so on. That's par for the course.

But it now seems to be widely acknowledged that the Leave campaigners lied. As in, they made numerous statements which were factually incorrect and which they must have known to be so.

Even more shocking, it has been claimed that they deliberately spread rumours attacking the integrity of people who disagreed with them. See the video below.

//www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=0dosmKwrAbI&app=desktop

We can't have a democracy in which our votes are based on lies.

I feel much more passionately about this than the actual outcome of the referendum! Can anyone tell me what I can do to stop this happening again in future campaigns? I've already written to my MP.

[Just5minswithDacre]

Well we only have 73meps, so roughly 1 Mep for nearly 1mio people. They generally don't hold surgeries and travel a lot. So, while it is possible to make an appointment to see them weeks in advance, it is not even closely analogous to popping down to an mp's surgery.

And that's a big part of why it feels remote to the constituents and is pretty bad as representing their interests.

[mathanxiety]

Again, what exactly do you understand of the concept of voting, Larry, and by extension, the concept of representative democracy?

Did you vote for a coalition in 2010?

Do you vote for your representatives in the House of Lords?

It is not the fault of the EU if people like you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and shout LaLaLa instead of paying attention.

Also, exactly where in Brussels does one demonstrate? And how do you split yourself to cover Strasbourg?
I am sure that reasonably well educated and bright people could easily figure all of that out.

the idea that most people would find it as easy to protest in Brussels as London demonstrates how far from the populace the Champagne socialists have become
Most people don't have enough bees in their bonnets to warrant even considering the direct approach that you hold so important, Larry.

Plus what Unescorted said about the House of Lords. Your notions of how things work are not standing up to scrutiny here.

[larrygrylls]

Math,

It is not for you to be the arbiter of what 'stands up to scrutiny' or not.

Your weird repeated question about the 'concept of voting' either needs rephrasing in a sensible way or just withdrawing. Voting is not a concept, it is a physical act. What is done with the X in a box can vary but voting is actually surprisingly simple.

[larrygrylls]

Math,

Simple question for you to answer? Do you believe in democracy or do you believe some people are too stupid or ill informed to have the right to a vote?

All your posting would suggest the latter.

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

Personally, I'm looking forward to larry explaining his 'nearest seat of government' philosophy to the people of NI. 90 mins drive belfast to dublin; 8 hours ferry plus five hours drive to London. The troubles solved in a stroke!

[mathanxiety]

I don't believe in the concept of democracy that you seem to hold - where physical distance from the centre of power seems to make an enormous difference to the quality of representation. This is a preposterous idea, and one that always has behind it the idea that mob action or physical threat may come into play, and may even be 'necessary'. That is also, incidentally, the same concept of democracy that the American National Rifle Association holds and it is based on paranoia and a complete inability to grasp what representative democracy is about.

I don't think you have given much thought to the subject of representative democracy and what it really entails.

As to your sledgehammer style question, I don't think I could improve on Burke's subtle thoughts on the matter of representative democracy:

'...it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.'

And I also like the thoughts of Winston Churchill on Burke:
'His soul revolted against tyranny, whether it appeared in the aspect of a domineering Monarch and a corrupt Court and Parliamentary system, or whether, mouthing the watch-words of a non-existent liberty, it towered up against him in the dictation of a brutal mob and wicked sect. No one can read the Burke of Liberty and the Burke of Authority without feeling that here was the same man pursuing the same ends, seeking the same ideals of society and Government, and defending them from assaults, now from one extreme, now from the other.'

You seem to really love simplicity - simple questions, simple answers. That is a huge pity.

[mathanxiety]

Still waiting for your thoughts on Arron Banks, btw.

[larrygrylls]

Math,

You seem to love complexity for the sake of it. The mark of the truly intelligent is an ability to make complex ideas seem easily comprehensible.

Your long quotes, by the way, entirely fail to answer my nice simple question. They concern how a representative should behave once elected, not who should have the right to vote.

[larrygrylls]

A quote I prefer:

'If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself'. Albert Einstein

[mathanxiety]

...Burke of course being the father of conservatism.

Sorry it all went over your head, Larry.

It's a good thing 6 year olds are not given the vote.

[larrygrylls]

I think you may find the Einstein quote was directed at people who try to appear clever by overcomplexifying, not at the hypothetical six year old.

Never mind....

[Chris1234567890]

OP Proportional Representation. You'll never remove the ministry of spin, but PR will bring a little more accountability. PR lets each voice be heard. PR ensures that each vote directly keeps that individual MP in parliament. Brings a whole new world of accountable politics that absolutely represents its people. If we end up with coalition governance, so be it. I think its fair to say from the last week or so, the UKs view on the old world has changed. Is this a new thread possibly? Id guess on the MN referendum battlefield, both sides may agree on something.

[mathanxiety]

Here's a concrete example you can mull over.

A certain very stupid politician called a referendum that served as a lightning rod for the seething discontent that seemed set to erupt and express itself in support for a nativist, racist political party obsessed with poorly thought out ideas about sovereignty, and that was fueled by generalised resentment on the part of the unemployed and unemployable (and funded by a multi millionaire, oddly enough).

The referendum asked a simple question, with one of the two possible answers potentially involving very complex negotiations in the aftermath of the vote. The negotiations would be about the terms of extrication from political, legal and financial links with a bloc of other countries, that had developed for over forty years. To many of the voters, this bloc had come to represent all that was unsatisfactory about life in this particular post-industrial, post-imperial, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society. Their misapprehension was encouraged by unscrupulous political parties for decades (and boy did that come back to bite them in the bum, but heyho)...

Thanks to the fact that the terms of the referendum were too simple and thus completely open ended, everyone who voted to leave the bloc could reasonably believe that their own individual hopes for the outcome might be fulfilled afterwards - some hoped for an end to immigration from other parts of the bloc; some hoped for continued favourable trade deals with members of the bloc; some hoped for renewed autonomy in economic decision making, in legal matters, in foreign affairs; some wanted a return to life as it had been fifty years before the vote, with only English spoken on the streets and in shops and schools. Some just flipped a coin.

The result came in - the majority wanted to leave.

So here's the question:
To what extent are all those voters, all with their favourite pet ideas about what Britain should become in the aftermath of the referendum - how Britain's relationship with the EU should look, how many (if any) immigrants should be allowed to remain in Britain, or enter Britain from now on, and whatever other wishes they may have - be allowed to express these ideas, to press their MP to carry out their ideas?

What form of expression can their articulation of their hopes and dreams take? Can the individuals all join together and form a crowd that won't leave the streets until the government agrees to expel all the people they don't like the look of or the sound of? They are exercising their right to protest, so why not do it en masse until they get what they want? What if different groups want the MPs to pay attention to different policies that they felt were promised to them by the Leave campaign? Can they just shout at each other until the loudest policy emerges and the MPs can take it from there?

Or should the hordes all eliminate the middle man entirely and descend on Brussels and sing football chants and throw plastic restaurant chairs about until they all get exactly the details they each want from 'the EU'?

Put simply, how are you going to make sure your MP represents you and only you, given that your neighbour may have voted Leave with a completely different set of assumptions as to what that meant. How loud and persistent do you think you have the right to be so that your MP does your bidding?

Do you see what Churchill was hinting at here when he paraphrased Burke - 'the dictation of a brutal mob and wicked sect'?

Do you understand the limits of your MP's responsibility to listen to you personally and thus the fatuousness (and actually the danger) inherent in your insistence that your ability to physically approach your representative is a key element of what you call democracy?

[Chris1234567890]

ummm Math........... Proportional Representation, to a parliament that then has the power to make the laws the people empower them to make. (Or undo the ones we wish undone). Sadly, until we brexit, we have neither.

[larrygrylls]

Math,

You really have utter contempt for the electorate. Your arguments against the right to peaceful protest evidence that you fear people expressing their opinions and see it as a form of bullying,

Ultimately I am a democrat, realising all its imperfections. At heart, you prefer a 'benign' dictatorship (which will enact your version of fairness).

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

I don't think you've really engaged with math's question there, larry.

Come to think of it, you've simply insulted her instead of addressing the issues she raised.

[larrygrylls]

I think you have the two of us confused.

[mathanxiety]

Ireland has PR. Ireland is in the EU. There is nothing about the decision to Leave that makes PR more of a possibility in the UK.

I think the issues I raised have gone right over Larry's head, Boulevard. He will understand it all better when the National Front takes to the streets, swelled with new members who have deserted Ukip in the wake of the booting of Farage (and all that he stands for) by Arron Banks as Ukip rebrands itself and embraces free movement of people/immigration as a condition of trade.

I am used to insults from Larry when he realises he is in over his head.

[mathanxiety]

The reason Theresa May can get away with the idea of using human beings and their lives as pawns in exit negotiations is that the Tories are afraid to stand up to those whose anger about immigration was reflected in the vote. Tory Brexiters all know they fanned flames that are no longer controllable.

Yougov poll from 2015 - scroll down a bit for this question:
"Britain leaving the European Union would...

• Allow the British government to radically reduce the amount of immigration into the country.."
  
  74% of Tory voters thought so. (87% of Ukip).
  
  According to Larry's simple idea of how things should be, as it becomes obvious that immigration isn't a simple question you can give a simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer to, Leave voters who voted in the belief that immigration would end once Britain exited the EU and think the government is selling them out in exit talks can take to the streets, can pressure their MPs.
  
  If you don't think there are people with a simple view of immigration, look at the 'Breaking Point' poster and ask yourself whose support that was aiming to attract.
  
  The number of racist incidents already reported reflects seething anger and a lot of boldness in expressing it.

[Theonslostbits]

You can't. Before the internet we had to listen to what was presented to us by politicians/newspapers/tv. All of which could be used as control. It must be a pain in the arse that we now have access to a wealth of information from very different view points for politicians. Time for some honest politics I say.