The definitive guide to Britain's success in the twenty-first century
Boris:
“The current mayor of London had effectively bankrupted TFL before the coronas virus had even hit, leaving a massive black hole in it’s finances. Any need to make up that deficit is entirely down to him, entirely his responsibility.”
The Truth:
TFL’s audited accounts before the pandemic year ending March 2020, show that since Sadiq Khan took over in 2016 TFL has reduced its deficit (money owed) by 71% and increased the cash in hand by 16%.
These two statements are the complete opposite of one another. Since the audited accounts are designed to state the actual position by law, it is clear that Boris not just lied but stated an untruth of such magnitude it calls into question the very basis of democratic debate in the house of commons.
This is not a mistake by a junior minister, it is a outright lie by the leader of one of the world’s major democracies. Boris as prime minister has refused to say that this ‘lie’ was wrong and has thus compounded the lie.
This calls into question the very basis of the UK’s democratic processes. The government can only have an ongoing mandate from the British people if it remains within the basic tenet of upholding truth and the main legal structures.
If not, then it becomes the same as a dictatorship where the truth is hidden and the process of governance is about keeping power at all costs.
Quite why there has not been a major outcry from the media on this blatant lie by the Prime Minister is unfathomable. Perhaps, due to Trumpism, we are becoming numb to lies and outright deceit.
Clearly, we need a new set of democratic processes to prevent any government, opposition or its individual actors to present lies as true statements, especially knowingly. CST suggests the following as a start point for further discussion:
For every ‘questioned’ statement that is made in the House by any government minister or senior opposition member, the commons should carry out a running check on its validity.
The questioning of validity can be from the opposition front bench or government front bench. It may also be questioned by an organisation on a (new) register that covers a broad section of business, charity and political organisations.
Once the validity has been checked, it should fall into five categories:
If a statement falls into the last three categories, then an additional statement by the minister or opposition member must be made to the house withdrawing the untruth. This statement should be called by the speaker at the start of questions to the Prime Minister.
These ‘untrue’ statements will count against each individual government or opposition member. If this count reaches 3 in any parliamentary session, then the speaker must make a statement in the house against that member, with the warning that if there is another untrue statement made, the member will be suspended for three weeks and must be dismissed from the government or opposition post.
If the untruth is grossly untrue, then the member will be automatically suspended and an investigation into the statement made to ascertain if the member knew that it was untrue.
If found to be grossly untrue and knowingly so by a significant vote or major vote by the select committee, a convened set of senior judges will review the decision.
In the event that these sitting judges deciding that the untruth was known to be untrue, the member will be suspended, lose their government or opposition job, with loss of pay for a three month period. This applies also to the Prime Minister.
Such a political process would make the house of commons become more reliable, make the members take a lot more care of how they research topics and prevent the government or opposition making completely wild statements for effect or to muddy the waters of debate.
CST commends this to the House!
CST has been worrying about a feeling we have had in the back of our minds during the Trump / Biden campaign.
There are clearly many Americans that believe in a core issue, such as; Abortion, unbridled capitalism or simple a strong faith. And many have been shown to be voting purely on the basis of their beliefs.
These people all know what drives Trump and what Trump represents. It seems inconceivable that anyone, whatever their personal beliefs, could misunderstand Trump, even talking into account the rife misinformation. And, what has been bothering CST, is this dichotomy between their understanding and the way they are proposing to vote.
What this means is that their vote is almost purely based on their belief system. Thinking, basic logic and facts does not come into it. So, as a result, in the year of our Lord 2020, the worlds most influential leader is being chosen on the basis of people’s belief systems. The thinking population is still too small to make a real difference. Biden may get the vote, but it should never be this close in an educated nation in 2020.
What concerns CST, is people are voting for a person they would never trust, in any sense, with any part of their personal or family life. So, it does seem that this voting behaviour - to follow doggedly their belief system - is so strong that it overpowers people’s core values of human reasonableness.
The priests and clergymen of the past with their prayers, chants and doom saying will be pleased that their efforts have been passed on so effectively. Create a belief system and you can do anything you wish.
The past thinkers and philosophers will be appalled. It will seem inconceivable to them that with today’s educated and informed public, with a free vote, people – on mass – are choosing a man like Trump to lead them, based almost solely on their core beliefs and not any consideration of the facts, or logical thought process.
Given the fairly good education standards across the United States, with a literacy rate of 99% and with a technically able population, does this mean that the human race is stuck with democracies forever based solely on belief systems? Does this vary significantly across populations and across different societies?
And, if our societal organisational frameworks are always driven by belief systems, unless we get very, very lucky, the long-term outlook for all of our societies is simply dire - however good their democratic processes - they will be failed by the very people who they are designed for.
CST is troubled about the core issues underlying our democratic processes.
Here we take a look at two important issues, intertwined, but both hugely important if we are to ever find a better way forward for humanity.
–whatever your own policies and political leanings, if you too want to see sensible democratic based improvement read on...