IFS verdict that major parties not being truthful

Surprise surprise. Didn't even need Cilla Black to confirm that.

Tories continue the trend of lies whilst Labour start their obvious return to power on a pack of lies.

 

Politics is in such a state in this country. Sunak, Starmer & Farage. 3 pathological liars. Awful

 

What gets me is that once again, all three parties (and more) tell us what we want to hear around the top domestic topics; transport, health, education, infrastructure etc ........ yet the second the PM is elected - looks certain to be Starmer - that is all put on the backburner whilst they transition to the normal route that career politicians take - 'international statesman'.
Middle East, Ukraine, China, milking the 'special relationship' with the US of A, a bit of Europe thrown in ............. they are all subjects that Starmer will immerse himself in as he follows the career politician path ......... local councillor > MP > shadow cabinet / cabinet > party leader > PM > International Statesman > step down > book deal > lifelong PM salary > KERCHING.
Transport, health, education, infrastructure ........ bah. Not on our watch.

Applies to all parties.

 

His lies may not be as bad as the other two but I consider him a fraud & completely unfit to be a Labour leader.

 

Starmer is a liar. Whether or not one thinks his lies are somehow 'better' than Johnson's or Sunak's is a moot point. He's a liar and he and his party are, apparently, lying now just like the Tories are lying now. This is exactly the kind of reason people get disillusioned and vote for Farage types. Starmer talking about trust after his lies and policy shifts is like Hitler saying he had no further plans in Europe in 1938. Politicians should be honest with the public whether they're in government or opposition. If taxes need to go up say so. If spending is to be cut say so. Tories are liars, corrupt and have nothing whatsoever to offer (in my opinion) but if Labour are dishonest (lying) as well lets at least call it out instead of hiding behind the fact that they're not the Tories.

 

The only parties that want to change things won't get voted in anyway because the electorate don't take them seriously. I like the Labour option better now I know they aren't particularly interested in debating Brexit.

 

But he is doing exactly that especially on levels of taxation and expenditure hence he is 100% in the same league.

Just be honest and straightforward with the people, it's not that hard. Just don't get this blind faith in anybody with a red rosette cannot be as bad. Yes they can.

Labour are lucky in Barnsley when you look at the options available on the ballot box, it's simply pick the best of a set of truly awful parties.

 

They need someone like Darren Jones at the helm.

 

I agree with the first part but I'm not so sure they're all awful and to be fair there are some decent people in political parties who genuinely care about the country whatever their rosette colour.

 

Yes agreed, it's just normally the worst ones seem to always end up on the front benches.

Meanwhile Ed Davey is out grandad dancing in a garden trying to show us all how much in touch with the public he and the fib dems are. It's not working (well in my personal opinion).

 

I'm going to take a different perspective on this. And think it's worth considering the following points. Do all politicians lie? Do politicians say things that after the event either aren't true, or don't come into being? What would voters perceptions be if a politician was brutally blunt and honest and said things that were neither popular, easy or beneficial to the public? And finally, how would media with vested interest from opaque quarters treat politicians in each of this instances?

There's a really interesting book i read some years back by Isabel Hardman (who yes, has a privileged upbringing and gets her paychecks from the right wing circuit). Why we get the wrong politicians. It's worth a read, and although i didnt agree with all aspects of it, it did offer insight not available to most of us though and provoking true thought seems a rare commodity nowadays.

Anyway. I think we can look at some of the posts here and it already provides enough of a microcosm of the general electorate.

Though I don't think politicians help themselves, they are placed under a scrutiny, more now than ever on an extraordinary scale. An innocent comment made a decade ago can be brought into view now, pivotted, represented and be made to caricature its owner of whatever the media wants to portray it as.

We all say things we change our minds about. We should all be capable of coming to a different analysis of something given more information, awareness, knowledge and direct experience. But given entrenched loyalties or more darkly, manipulation by bad actors, everything someone has ever said can be used against them forever and magnified to an unbearable degree.

I fear we're becoming more binary as a society. I'm not sure we allow our politicians to be completely truthful... even the ones who want to be. And we often struggle to separate those who have intent to influence through blatant lie, and those who say something but then change their mind and then have to find words that show them in a positive light, hoping our media who have become desperate for gotchas and their own limelight will go kind on them.

Politics is in a bad place. But I'm not sure the media or electorate are especially helping either.

 

Our political system has been gradually weakened by donations, lobby groups, special interests, paid for questions, retirement jobs for favours, globalisation, to the point that really the election is just picking a different flavour of the same corruption. I know its fashionable for people to say "their all the same" without really thinking about what they mean, but actually the more you follow the money and privilege, with a few notable exceptions they really ARE all the same.
What possible reason could Wes Streeting have for taking donations from a private medical company, hmm? Just a co-incidence that Labour have pledged to reduce waiting lists by using....private medical companies? I'm sure it is.

 

Aren't the Tories doing that already? Farage's baby of cost cutting gurus' will come in through the backdoor too. It was only the other week I had a number cruncher sat with me for five hours.

 

Parties also have to fund themselves. Personally i'd rather a set amount is allocated from the public purse to allow parties to campaign and donations and lobbying is curtailed massively and ideally removed.

But we have to ensure the media play the same game. There are so many think tanks that have opaque funding. And you only have to watch the merry go round of govt advisor, to think tank, to times radio, to the spectator... or some other variant of route with the same names.

Personally, i'd make it law that every political media outlet, journalist and analyst declare which party they last voted for, what funding they receive and from where and it be placed on screen every time they speak. At least then we could start to see who is trying to influence those who probably don't realise they are being influenced.

 

The electorate are the problem, as much as the politicians. Starmer knows that if he says taxes need to go up, that will put millions of people off voting for him. You can be as principled as you like, but, if you are not in power, you can do nothing to help those you wish to help. History shows that people do not vote for tax rises. It's fine for other people's taxes to go up, but not yours.

 

Starmer did mention tax rises in an interview he did before the election was announced. He said that if people were expecting sweeping changes under Labour think again. It was all over the news at the time.

 

Over the next few years, the government’s books don’t balance because of unrealistic real term cuts in public spending that the Tories have baked in. They have put through their 2x 2% NI cuts with no regards to this for purely political benefit. It’s very much a case of kicking the problem down the road for Labour to deal with. They know exactly what they’re doing and they’re completely misleading the public by promising further tax cuts.

Now Labour aren’t daft and know full well that something needs to change and the 3 options are growth, tax or borrowing. If they say tax or borrowing during the election, they will get hammered by the Tories and their press machine as we have seen with the nonsense tax rise smears that have blighted this campaign. Labour have gone for growth instead, which is commendable and absolutely required but difficult to imagine making the difference quick enough to sort the above issue out.

I am fairly sure Labour will get into power, have a proper look at the books then explain to the nation what an absolute shitshow the Tories have left the country’s finances in. There will have to then be changes to their ‘plans’, ie, more borrowing/higher taxes on certain elements going forward. You can only do this once in power, as the public aren’t ready to hear the honest assessment yet.

I think it’s a bit fcking rich to blame Labour when a) the Conservatives have completely fcked the country’s finances over 14 years and b) have completely lied to the public about the damage they have done.

 

Will furlough need to be paid for again by key workers? Another policy that will divide people in the future.

 

Furlough money can be "repaid" over as long as the government of the day want. There is absolutely no reason it couldn't be paid over the next 2, 20, 200 or even 2,000 years. Its entirely political choice how long it takes and whether any services need to be cut to support it.