If you were unkind or cynical, you could describe politics as a marriage of convenience between the science of government and the art of lying.
Politicians – as a group – are considered to be dishonest. “No shit, Sherlock”. Polling from 2020 found that most 79% of those who responded thought politicians were only truthful up to half of the time, with 42% believing that politicians were only truthful for a fifth of the time1.
In the same poll, 68% agreed that any politician who lied during the 2019 UK General Election campaign should be treated as having committed a criminal offence.
That’s not to single out politicians. Other professions considered to be equally untrustworthy include journalists, people who work in finance, advertisers and the civil service2.
But it’s one thing to complain about something and another to attempt to do something about it. Step forward Plaid Cymru’s Adam Price MS.
1. Compassion in Politics (2020). “Public agrees: politicians who deliberately lie should be treated as criminals”. Available at: https://www.compassioninpolitics.com/lying_politicians_criminals
2. Ipsos (23th October 2023). “Politicians the least trusted profession, while doctors the most trustworthy.” Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/politicians-least-trusted-profession-while-doctors-most-trustworthy
The proposed clampdown on lying at the Senedd aimed to deal with a very specific type of lie: the “whopper” (or what you could call misrepresentation, bare-faced lies, black lies, or simply “bullshit”).
I can’t think of that many instances where that kind of bare-faced lie has been told (at a Senedd level) to be honest.
Where untruthful or questionable statements have been made in the Senedd, they’ve usually been accompanied by plausible deniability (i.e. lack of a paper trail, lack of evidence), are left open to interpretation or reduced to arguing over definitions.
Here are examples of the more frequent types of “politician’s lie” which wouldn’t be covered by these proposals yet are equally damaging to politics as a whole:
- Oversimplification – Statements based on the fewest sources of information and/or without offering the complete picture, leading to politicians unwittingly (or deliberately) making a claim that’s exaggerated or minimised for effect. Example: “Wales is owed billions from HS2″ is a popular claim by Plaid Cymru politicians and others but is factually incorrect due to Wales’ lack of devolved powers over rail infrastructure which, constitutionally, means we’re not “owed” a penny.
- False choice – Limiting the available courses of action to A or B, where there are options C, D, E etc. that are not fully explored or explained. The available choices will usually be between whatever the opposing party wants or is doing, contrasted with whatever the party of the person making the claim wants. Example: Not considering a “Soft Brexit”, association agreement or EFTA membership following the 2016 referendum, but making it a straight choice between a “Hard Brexit” or “No Deal”.
- False cause – Claiming that two things/incidents/policy decisions are connected when they aren’t. Example: “People can’t get GP appointments because of immigrants (not because of outdated appointment booking systems, assuming you always need to see a GP for every illness, digital exclusion amongst the elderly so they don’t use online systems where they do work, or a lack of GPs more generally).”
- Half-truths – Saying something that’s partially correct but has been deliberately left open to interpretation in order to generate controversy where none exists. Example: The Conservative claim that the new 20 mph default limit is a “blanket” measure; the policy is a “blanket” measure applied across Wales at the same time in the same way, but it was never applied to every single road (which is what the Tories and certain sections of the media want people to think).
- Lying by omission/lack of candour – Only offering specific information as and when asked, leaving important facts out or not volunteering such information which could affect how “truthful” a statement or claim appears to be – so it’s not a direct lie. Example: The rows around Vaughan Gething’s sacking of Hannah Blythyn and his evidence to the Covid inquiry.
- Spin – When a government, political party or politician presents the most positively biased interpretation of an event, statement, decision or incident to appear more competent or in control than they are. Spin can be used negatively as well to undermine a government, party or politician. Examples: Countless, but it’s still a type of lying.
