Should politicians tell us blunt truths, instead of the "miracles" they will work?

[scalt]

It is often said that "politics is the art of the possible", and we all know that blunt truths are not vote winners. Politicians make all kinds of promises before an election, and then rip off their masks the moment it is over, and the dogs are unleashed. But I have been wondering, has this constant telling the public what they want to hear gone too far? With the "VAT on private schools thing", it's actually refreshing to hear a policy likely to be unpopular with many people being mentioned before the election, instead of being brought in by stealth later. It may of course be a red herring, a distraction, and the tip of the iceberg of nasty things that Starmer might do if he gets in, but it's being mentioned now. Sunak made pledges which he knew were untenable, such as "stop the boats", and Rwanda: he knew it was untenable, we knew, he knew that we knew. When Tony Blair's government brought in tuition fees soon after being elected, was there any mention of it before the election?

Take the way Boris Johnson handled Covid, with his desperate desire to be liked, and he wasn't even fighting an election then. He went from the crowd-pleasing "the virus is nothing to worry about" to "twelve weeks of our magic lockdown, and we can send the virus packing". He swore to "do whatever it takes" to beat the virus. He said "normalish by Christmas, significant normality by Easter", knowing that both were unrealistic. Then it was "vaccines will stop transmission, if only everybody takes them". Because of all this, people looked to him as a god who would save them from the nasty virus. Furlough was sold as a generous measure which would help everybody, with no costs at all; if you ticked the right boxes, and while the magic money tree bears fruit. Nick Gibb (schools minister) said "no child will be disadvantaged in their education as a result of lockdown". Yeah, right.

If the government had instead said "we cannot beat the virus, we can only lessen the harms", and spoken frankly that the cures of lockdown and furlough would come with regrettable and tremendous costs, I would have had far more respect for lockdown, and for the man himself. But because he kept trying to please everybody, he ended up pleasing nobody, apart from his rich mates. Even now, both parties are in total denial about the damage caused by lockdown, as if they have made a pact to each other not to mention it. Sunak's "five pledges" bore no fruit, but if he had said "I have a difficult job to rebuild after my government's extremely damaging lockdowns", there might be more respect for him.

Is it time to abandon the model of political spin, which makes politicians look good in the short term, but then comes crashing down in spectacular fashion when the mask falls off, and for them to say the unpopular stuff out loud?

I thought Keir Starmer was honest about some things

He told the junior doctor he would not agree to there pay rise as it was not realistic

He does not name his children or do photo shoots as he wants to keep there identity private

Yes, they need to tell us there is little headroom to do nice things without borrowing, tax rises or cuts. I would really appreciate that kind of honesty.

I think it's a risk.

But Starmer is being honest about the fact he can't do everything he's like sue to finances.

But he's also saying how he will change that so he can.

Time will tell if it pays off

Oh definitely this! If we want to fix our broken services there will have to be some pain. Short term pain for long term gain! Why can't we be honest and have a grown up conversation about it?

Lollll except he is lying about that taxes he will raise. Keeping it quiet until in office. He is far from honest.

Honest would be being completely transparent. But that won't win votes.

I think it is time to be honest and look at how things are. The country is in real trouble. Public spending is nearly 100 percent of GDP, those services are now struggling (criminal Justice, health and education) and we are paying much more tax then we used to for them.

I don’t want to hear about sunlight uplands, Brexit freedoms or “stop the boats”. This is pathetic signaling for people who don’t want to think about the really tough stuff. Reform is just more of that and deliberately so. It’s nice easy rabble rousing like Brexit. Cheap and you never have to deliver.

I also wish they'd focus more on their own policies and less on bashing each other. It feels like time wasting. Stop having a pop at your opposition for point scoring and focus on what you will deliver if you get in.

I agree. Another way to look at this too, is what's in the manifesto and won't get blocked:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Convention

"The Salisbury Convention (officially called the Salisbury Doctrine, the Salisbury-Addison Convention or the Salisbury/Addison Convention) is a constitutional convention in the United Kingdom under which the House of Lords should not oppose the second or third reading of any government legislation promised in its election manifesto. The origins of the convention date back to the late 19th century, at which time the Conservatives held a majority in the House of Lords and, with the support of the third Marquess of Salisbury, developed the "Referendal Theory", which applied solely to Liberal legislation, under which the House of Lords could obstruct legislation until it had received majority approval at a general election.[1] This was changed following the landslide Labour Party victory in the 1945 general election, which produced a Labour government seen as having a popular mandate for significant reform, while once again there was a Conservative majority in the House of Lords. The fifth Marquess of Salisbury (grandson of the third) announced that the Lords "would not seek to thwart the main lines of Labour's legislation provided it derived from the party's manifesto for the previous election". From this point, manifesto bills were only to be adjusted by the Lords; however, on non-manifesto bills, the Lords were able to act as they had before."

Without digging out the 97 manifesto, my guess is that Labour would've couched tuition fees in such a way that it wasn't blocked by the Lords, going by the above. Therefore it may be the case that other things are capable of being pulled into being VAT-able, going by this (eg nurseries and holiday clubs are Ofsted inspected):

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-on-education-and-vocational-training-notice-70130

Presumably there are other examples eg Labour is verbally saying they'll implement the Cass Review "in full" but their manifesto does not say this etc etc.

There is an example of being honest. When Theresa May presented the electorate with her idea about paying for adult social care...and ended up losing a majority..! That might be a worrying lesson to all parties.

In an ideal world yes it would be great but in real world they would get slaughtered for being too truthful.

You see it is okay for the smaller parties like the Greens, Plaid Cymru, Lib Dems etc to say exactly what they would like to do as they know they will never have to implement any of their ideas. They can promise all the things that voters would probably love to see happening if money was no object, as they will never have to deliver.

However both the Tories and in particular Labour would be annihilated if they dared tell the whole truth. For example i suspect a lot of Labour voters (businesses as well) would like to rejoin the single market/customs union but if Starmer even hinted that might be possible, it would be Brexit all over again as press would be all over it like a rash.

Same with taxes and borrowing, the truth is whoever wins will have to either raise taxes or borrow more, otherwise our public services will be utterly decimated and NHS gone. However, if either party & especially Labour hinted at this, the press would again never shut up about it and it would derail election campaign.

The one thing i am certain of, is that at least if taxes do have to be raised for our public services, then at least Labour will try and select taxes that do not disproportionately hammer the poorest in society; unlike the Tories who will always look after their rich and corporate buddies and not give a jot about the poorest & less fortunate.

So as much as it is easy to blame "lying" politicians we have to take a good long hard look at our media as they help drive the "lies".

Labour and taxes. It's council tax and the blueprint they'd bring from Wales that will hammer everyone, unless you don't pay it for whichever reason. I find the CGT discussions on tax something of a bizarre diversion in this respect. And Starmer's face said it all when Beth Rugby asked him about council tax. Of course council tax does need an overhaul but how? And we're all already paying more via the police and social care additions on council tax. That could be a huge hike for almost everyone.

Well if council tax was your major fetish, everyone would move to Wandsworth. And I agree that it is entirely ridiculous that those living in one wealthy London borough pay council tax at rates significantly lower than almost anyone in any other part of the country. My nice 4 bed detached house in Cornwall incurs council tax of about £3500 annually. The house's occupants are 67 and 68. No children in school anymore, no serious crime issues, no ageing parents to fund. So whatever the council tax is levied at, we are paying for bins, libraries and road maintenance for our personal benefit, and that doesn't add up to one third of what we pay in council tax. I do understand that this sounds selfish but until politicians actually grasp that most of the population need to see some personal reason/benefit/gain from their tax payments, there will be a lot of resistance.

Yup, this idea that I shouldn’t pay, someone else should pay so my child can inherit my house. I remember people saying things like “my mum has gone into a care home and we are being forced to sell her home to pay for the fees”. Well was she planning to move back in? They may as well just be blunt and say “I was hoping for more of an inheritance”. Someone has to pay for it.

God knows I want DD to Inherit everything I have tax free but if it means she has to pay higher taxes during her working life when she actually needs the money then I think it’s reasonable that at some point I settle my own bill.

And if you really want to see politicians being told blunt truths about the electorate's views and opinions, watch the French general election. I think that is going to be a no holds barred contest, and very bitter and divisive. La France profonde is not welcoming multiculturalism and diversity, only individuals who are valued, or not, according to their contribution to community and their work ethic.

@Chickenuggetsticks Completely agree with you. We sold DMIL's house to fund her care when it was obvious that her dementia made it unsafe for her to live independently. Roughly £250,000 was spent, from her assets/money, on her care in four years. She would have liked her children to have had more, but she was over-ruled, and comfortable. She wasn't rich, but she and DFiL had planned.

The Labour Party couldn’t have been more explicit about this.

It’s true, it’s hard for politicians to tell the truth if it makes them unpopular. But I think there needs to be a move away from wild, unrealistic pledges. I automatically distrust them if they sound too good to be true, especially just before an election.

I agree OP and I think Labour are planning to do that and are indicating they will by how they are positioning themselves now. E.g. Streeting yesterday.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czdd2858pd8o

I also think Boris Johnson was a liar the likes of which we've never had as Prime Minister before, and hopefully never will again. I actually think he's got some kind of personality disorder and lies without compunction, far beyond the average human. He shouldn't be used as any kind of yardstick for politicians and it shows how much damage he did, that we now think that's the best we can expect

Agreed. I was tempted to vote Lib Dem because I've lost confidence somewhat in my MP (Diane Abbott). But then I read their manifesto and it was completely pie-in-the-sky. Some of it sounded like they didn't even believe it themselves. These are not people I want running the country, or trying to.

When Tony Blair's government brought in tuition fees soon after being elected, was there any mention of it before the election?

Just to answer this one - yes it was in the 1997 manifesto.

Any candidate that tells the truth to the electorate will always remain a candidate and never a politician because the voters don't want to hear the truth.

A candidate that lies will always get more votes because voters want the Government to spend more on services that benefit them but don't want to pay any more tax for it unless those taxes are paid by somebody else.

Ain't that the truth - unfortunately!

@MissyB1

"Ain't that the truth - unfortunately"

So who is to blame for lying politicians - the lying politician or the voters that preferred to vote in a lying politician rather than a truthful one?

Look at Grant Shapps who’s said twice in the last fortnight that it’s pretty much over and journalists are talking about him like he’s lost his fucking mind.
Sunak says it’s all to play for and people say he’s delusional, Shapps says they’re toast and he’s being mocked and pitied. They can’t win.

The VAT on private schools is not an unpopular pledge. The majority of people will never have to pay this so the majority are in favour - and many love it as a "stick-it-to-the-rich" move.

No party will tell the truth because (most) people don't want to hear it, won't vote for anything that they think will disadvantage them personally, don't want to know about it and even if they did they don't want to get their hands dirty.