Do politicians actually make PROMISES before elections?

BigBrownBear

Maybe i'm naive but I've never heard a politician say 'I PROMISE to do x,y or z if, when I'm elected'
Even in the most basic form of election for say a shop steward or student rep, candidates will offer proposals and visions of their plans.

In that respect is it correct to call politicians liars and traitors if they change course or don't deliver on their proposals.

NB - this is a general discussion on politics in general and not to be confused with any water charges discussion

Rightwing

BigBrownBear wrote: »

Maybe i'm naive but I've never heard a politician say 'I PROMISE to do x,y or z if, when I'm elected'
Even in the most basic form of election for say a shop steward or student rep, candidates will offer proposals and visions of their plans.

In that respect is it correct to call politicians liars and traitors if they change course or don't deliver on their proposals.

NB - this is a general discussion on politics in general and not to be confused with any water charges discussion

This was the promise: (it's why they got my vote). Needless to say, minimal done of course.

http://www.thejournal.ie/quango-costs-spiralling-out-of-control-says-mcgrath-1425959-Apr2014/


Leo Varadkar, Enda Kenny and Richard Bruton in 2011.

THE COST OF government agencies is spiralling out of control, an independent TD says.

barneystinson

Rightwing wrote: »

This was the promise: (it's why they got my vote). Needless to say, minimal done of course.

http://www.thejournal.ie/quango-costs-spiralling-out-of-control-says-mcgrath-1425959-Apr2014/


Leo Varadkar, Enda Kenny and Richard Bruton in 2011.

THE COST OF government agencies is spiralling out of control, an independent TD says.

Do you believe everything independent TD's tell you?

Rightwing

barneystinson wrote: »

Do you believe everything independent TD's tell you?

Very little faith in any of them, more replying to the OP's question.

Peintre Celebre

Check out this absolute clown. This fella won't even go for re-election. Watch the whole video, he is absolutely unbelievable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccH8ht3T1_k

Dannyboy83

BigBrownBear wrote: »

Maybe i'm naive but I've never heard a politician say 'I PROMISE to do x,y or z if, when I'm elected'
Even in the most basic form of election for say a shop steward or student rep, candidates will offer proposals and visions of their plans.

In that respect is it correct to call politicians liars and traitors if they change course or don't deliver on their proposals.

NB - this is a general discussion on politics in general and not to be confused with any water charges discussion

The word used in politics is 'vow', rather than 'promise'.
Click on this link:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=enda+kenny+vows

If one makes a public vow and/or include it in their manifesto, and people then vote on that basis, the elected are expected to act accordingly.
That is the 'contract' between the representative and the electorate, except it's not a contract in Ireland, just a declaration of intention.

If you hire a builder to build you a conservatory, and instead he builds you an outhouse, you immediately terminate his contract. He has invalidated the contract. You fire him.
Could you imagine if you had to wait 4 years to fire him/sue him?

If you hire a politician to make Irish optional, and he reneges on that promise... there is no political mechanism for recourse, one must derail the system through protest in order to make their position untenable, or wait until the next election.

Compare that to California:

Under California law, any elected official may be the target of a recall campaign. To trigger a recall election, proponents of the recall must gather a certain number of signatures from registered voters within a certain time period. The number of signatures statewide must equal 12% of the number of votes cast in the previous election for that office

Worse yet, one can vote for a party and their manifesto, then that party can enter into coalition, discard their previous manifesto, and despite the 'contract' changing - no new vote is required.

The end result is that a politician can lie their way into office in Ireland and suffer little consequence for it.
Or tell the truth but be blindingly incompetent and suffer little consequence for it.
i.e. There is no accountability in Irish politics

Bear in mind, in 2009, the entire country wanted to pull the plug on the most unpopular administration in the history of the State -but had no say in the fate of the country.
Instead it was left to a few hundred members of the Green Party, who voted to stay in government 4:1 and voted down the rejection of NAMA 2:1
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/overwhelming-backing-for-partnership-in-government-1.847514

And had they not pulled the plug on government in 2011 and called for a GE, who is to say when the madness would have stopped?

Rightwing

This is why the rise of SF and independents is to greatly welcomed. Will force politicians to be more accountable. We see it already with IW. Backtracking at an embarrassing rate.

NIMAN

And what makes you think that SF or the Independents would be any better if they gained power?

You only have to look at the fall of Obama to see that its a hard job to deliver on your promises. He came in on a blaze of glory, the majority of the country was excited and they thought it was a new age in US politics, yet most now despise him, even his own side.

Rightwing

Not if they gained power. Just to be kept on their toes. I don't like these big majority governments - they get carried away and think they are untouchable.

NIMAN

But my point is that its very easy to be in opposition and be anti-everything, and pick holes in anything the Gov does.

If SF were in power then they would find that they would have to make choices that the public would not like. Its the nature of Government. But its easy to make promises if you don't have to follow up on them.

Rightwing

NIMAN wrote: »

But my point is that its very easy to be in opposition and be anti-everything, and pick holes in anything the Gov does.

If SF were in power then they would find that they would have to make choices that the public would not like. Its the nature of Government. But its easy to make promises if you don't have to follow up on them.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that.

ednwireland

NIMAN wrote: »

. But its easy to make promises if you don't have to follow up on them.

bit like the government then

NIMAN

ednwireland wrote: »

bit like the government then

True, but they are likely to suffer at the next election. When in power its a worry every Gov has, especially when they have to introduce unpopular policies like this one has had to.

MouseTail

No, they don't, or can't make promises, they can set out a broad vision, but everything then is up for grabs when negotiating with potential coalition partners.
It is interesting, and useful to hear the recent talk of 'red line issues', as that is what really matters in a PRSTV system.

Peregrinus

They can make all the promises they want. But . . .

First, if they don’t get a majority of the vote (and no party ever does in Ireland) they can point out that they have no mandate to deliver. How, after all, can they have a moral or political obligation do something when, given the choice, a majority of the electorate voted otherwise?

Secondly, and more seriously, they can point out that (if they achieve office) their job is to run the country, and to do what they think is in the public interest, even if it is unpopular. Not only do they have to be free to respond to events as they unfold; they have a responsibility to do so, and doing what looks at the time to be the best thing is always a bigger priority than doing what , six months ago, they said they’d do.

Which means, yes, there is space for them to make promises which they know they cannot be called upon to fulfil.

But the real criticism here is not of politicians for making popular but unenforceable promises; it’s of voters for accepting, or even demanding, such promises. Voters should vote for the people in whom they have most trust when it comes to governing the country, and responding to situations which have yet to arise. The candidates’ vision, their values, their characters and their competence are all relevant considerations; whether they say they’ll keep open the post office in Ballygobackwards is not.

realitykeeper

BigBrownBear wrote: »

Maybe i'm naive but I've never heard a politician say 'I PROMISE to do x,y or z if, when I'm elected'
Even in the most basic form of election for say a shop steward or student rep, candidates will offer proposals and visions of their plans.

In that respect is it correct to call politicians liars and traitors if they change course or don't deliver on their proposals.

NB - this is a general discussion on politics in general and not to be confused with any water charges discussion

In order to tell a lie, it is not necessary to precede the lie with the words "I promise." In fact the vast vast vast vast majority of lies are not proceeded by "I promise."

So to answer your question, yes it is correct to call politicians liars and traitors if they change course or don`t deliver on their proposals.

Peregrinus

realitykeeper wrote: »

So to answer your question, yes it is correct to call politicians liars and traitors if they change course or don`t deliver on their proposals.

No, it isn't.

At the time he indicates an intention to do X, he may be entirely honest; he may intend and expect to do X. If he subsequently fails to do X that may be because his changed his mind, because subsequent events mean that X no longer seems advisable, because circumstances have altered. That doesn't retrospectively convert his statement of his intention to do X into a lie. It doesn't matter whether his change of mind is wise or justified.

Lies require dishonesty. A statement of intent to do X is only a lie if, at the time of making the statement, the person concerned intends not to do X.

Rightwing

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it isn't.

At the time he indicates an intention to do X, he may be entirely honest; he may intend and expect to do X. If he subsequently fails to do X that may be because his changed his mind, because subsequent events mean that X no longer seems advisable, because circumstances have altered. That doesn't retrospectively convert his statement of his intention to do X into a lie. It doesn't matter whether his change of mind is wise or justified.

Lies require dishonesty. A statement of intent to do X is only a lie if, at the time of making the statement, the person concerned intends not to do X.

Agreed, everyone knows this is the case though. For instance, what's stopping Kenny from getting rid of the 145 odd quangos he promised?

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

This was the promise: (it's why they got my vote). Needless to say, minimal done of course.

http://www.thejournal.ie/quango-costs-spiralling-out-of-control-says-mcgrath-1425959-Apr2014/


Leo Varadkar, Enda Kenny and Richard Bruton in 2011.

THE COST OF government agencies is spiralling out of control, an independent TD says.

The last time you posted this, I think we found about 25 quangos gone under "B" alone yet you continue to maintain the fiction that they haven't got rid of any!!!

Peregrinus

Rightwing wrote: »

Agreed, everyone knows this is the case though. For instance, what's stopping Kenny from getting rid of the 145 odd quangos he promised?

I've no idea. I haven't followed that particular controversy. Perhaps now he is better informed about what the consequences of abolishing them would be and, with that better information, he no longer thinks abolishing them would be wise?

And here we run across a perennial problem. Politicians in opposition have limited access to the impartial expert advice of the civil service, and they have a strong incentive to make promises which have superficial populist appeal. With almost any promise made in opposition, by the time the moment comes to deliver on the promise, the politician almost always has better information than he had when he made the promise, and he also has an awareness that he is going to have to wear the consequences of following through on his promise. So we shouldn't be at all surprised if, in the cold light of day, a fair proportion of election promises are deep-sixed. Truth to tell, we should probably be grateful. And perhaps one day we'll learn the stupidity of electing politicians on the basis of ill-thought-out populist gestures. If we stopped electing them on the basis of such promises, they'd stop making them.

Rightwing

Peregrinus wrote: »

I've no idea. I haven't followed that particular controversy. Perhaps now he is better informed about what the consequences of abolishing them would be and, with that better information, he no longer thinks abolishing them would be wise?

And here we run across a perennial problem. Politicians in opposition have limited access to the impartial expert advice of the civil service, and they have a strong incentive to make promises which have superficial populist appeal. With almost any promise made in opposition, by the time the moment comes to deliver on the promise, the politician almost always has better information than he had when he made the promise, and he also has an awareness that he is going to have to wear the consequences of following through on his promise. So we shouldn't be at all surprised if, in the cold light of day, a fair proportion of election promises are deep-sixed. Truth to tell, we should probably be grateful. And perhaps one day we'll learn the stupidity of electing politicians on the basis of ill-thought-out populist gestures. If we stopped electing them on the basis of such promises, they'd stop making them.

I regard this as a strong and convincing post.
However, there is no excuse for not following through on some 'issues/promises', the quangos being one of them. It effectively means shooting yourself in the foot.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

I regard this as a strong and convincing post.
However, there is no excuse for not following through on some 'issues/promises', the quangos being one of them. It effectively means shooting yourself in the foot.

But you have no idea what most of the quangos do, and whether they are necessary or not.

Up until two weeks ago, you weren't aware that town councils had been abolished.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

But you have no idea what most of the quangos do, and whether they are necessary or not.

Up until two weeks ago, you weren't aware that town councils had been abolished.

Very little, they probably don't know themselves.

Was it yourself who posted that town councils aren't classified as 'quangos' ?

Peregrinus

Rightwing wrote: »

Was it yourself who posted that town councils aren't classified as 'quangos' ?

Actually, they're not. They were a tier of local government. A quango is a quasi-autonomous non-governmental authority.

Rightwing

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, they're not. They were a tier of local government. A quango is a quasi-autonomous non-governmental authority.

So Kenny needs to front up on this issue and disclose what progress he has made with the quangos. Has he even got rid of any of them?

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

This was the promise: (it's why they got my vote). Needless to say, minimal done of course.

http://www.thejournal.ie/quango-costs-spiralling-out-of-control-says-mcgrath-1425959-Apr2014/


Leo Varadkar, Enda Kenny and Richard Bruton in 2011.

THE COST OF government agencies is spiralling out of control, an independent TD says.

Rightwing wrote: »

So Kenny needs to front up on this issue and disclose what progress he has made with the quangos. Has he even got rid of any of them?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/government-vows-to-save-20m-with-final-cull-of-quangos-29917348.html

44 done by Jan 2014, another 63 promised by September, with 109 still on the list.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/government-making-progress-abolishing-quangos-says-howlin-650072.html

169 done by Nov 2014, more to follow.


You voted for them because they promised to abolish 145 quangos.

They have now abolished 169, exceeded the target, and you don't plan to vote for them next time out?

*1,000

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/government-vows-to-save-20m-with-final-cull-of-quangos-29917348.html

44 done by Jan 2014, another 63 promised by September, with 109 still on the list.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/government-making-progress-abolishing-quangos-says-howlin-650072.html

169 done by Nov 2014, more to follow.


You voted for them because they promised to abolish 145 quangos.

They have now abolished 169, exceeded the target, and you don't plan to vote for them next time out?

*1,000

Howlin needs to provide a list. That's probably just all town councils, and we have agreed upon the fact that they don't constitute a quango.

Second area I've been hugely disappointed with the Govt is IW. This is pitiful. To restore confidence, heads need to roll.

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

Howlin needs to provide a list. That's probably just all town councils, and we have agreed upon the fact that they don't constitute a quango.

Second area I've been hugely disappointed with the Govt is IW. This is pitiful. To restore confidence, heads need to roll.

We didn't agree on the town councils that they don't constitute a quango.

If you didn't include them, there wouldn't have been 145 in the first promise.

So you have moved on to a different agenda. What promise have they broken in relation to Irish Water from their election campaign?

RobbingBandit

Quinn and Gilmore signed oversized commitments stating no increases in student fees I like many students voted those rats in falling for their lies, Quinn did a lot of damage to education not just third level but to the many kids reliant on special needs education supports, now he is off enjoying his pensions while thousands of kids that need help are being left behind.

Rightwing

Godge wrote: »

We didn't agree on the town councils that they don't constitute a quango.

If you didn't include them, there wouldn't have been 145 in the first promise.

So you have moved on to a different agenda. What promise have they broken in relation to Irish Water from their election campaign?

That is incorrect. We need to be fair to them.

It's the way they handled IW that has left a lot to be desired. Government really can't do much right. As the great M Friedman said 'Put Govt in charge of the Sahara desert and within 5 years there'll be a shortage of sand there'.

masculinist

Lies like this come to mind




You dont have to say ''I promise'' to be lying. You can simply just tell a lie directly.



Shortly after , Dell moved 1900 jobs from Limerick to Poland , for just one example.


Admittedly this is a referendum lie, not an election per se but if you ask me this makes it even worse. The process of altering the constitution should be treated with respect.

Icepick

masculinist wrote: »

Lies like this come to mind




You dont have to say ''I promise'' to be lying. You can simply just tell a lie directly.



Shortly after , Dell moved 1900 jobs from Limerick to Poland , for just one example.


Admittedly this is a referendum lie, not an election per se but if you ask me this makes it even worse. The process of altering the constitution should be treated with respect.

The Dell jobs would have moved regardless.

IDA companies employ more people than ever now.

Icepick

Rightwing wrote: »

This is why the rise of SF and independents is to greatly welcomed. Will force politicians to be more accountable.

Promising even less realistic to outright cloud cuckoo land things won't improve anything.

masculinist

Icepick wrote: »

The Dell jobs would have moved regardless.

IDA companies employ more people than ever now.

Of course they would have moved. Because they lied about the Lisbon Treaty endowing us with a ''Yes to Jobs'' magic wand. They lied.

Padkir

masculinist wrote: »

Of course they would have moved. Because they lied about the Lisbon Treaty endowing us with a ''Yes to Jobs'' magic wand. They lied.

I think that's unreasonable. Large companies are always going to be relocating and restructuring, trying to make savings as best they can. You can't look at one case of jobs lost in isolation; you need to look at net jobs created since then or as a result of our vote.

Peregrinus

masculinist wrote: »

Of course they would have moved. Because they lied about the Lisbon Treaty endowing us with a ''Yes to Jobs'' magic wand. They lied.

I look in vain for the words "magic wand" on the poster of which you so helpfully provide a photograph. And if you have to make stuff up and pretend they said it in order to back up your claim that they are "liars", I'm afraid it's not they who look like liars.

Sane people understand the claim being made by the poster as follows: If the referendum passes, the employment climate in Ireland will be better than if it does not pass. You may agree with that claim or you may not, but you don't refute it by showing that the referendum passed, and then Dell shed its jobs in Limerick. As a case for saying that the claim was a "lie", this is just laughable.

masculinist

Padkir wrote: »

I think that's unreasonable. Large companies are always going to be relocating and restructuring, trying to make savings as best they can. You can't look at one case of jobs lost in isolation; you need to look at net jobs created since then or as a result of our vote.

You have put the cart before the horse.

The unreasonable thing is to promise jobs when you dont have any to give. That was scare mongering. Scaremongering using lies and promises which they knew had nothing to back them up. You cant promise everyone jobs especially back in 2007/8 when a quarter of a million were losing their jobs. Thats nonsense.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I look in vain for the words "magic wand" on the poster of which you so helpfully provide a photograph. And if you have to make stuff up and pretend they said it in order to back up your claim that they are "liars", I'm afraid it's not they who look like liars.

Sane people understand the claim being made by the poster as follows: If the referendum passes, the employment climate in Ireland will be better than if it does not pass. You may agree with that claim or you may not, but you don't refute it by showing that the referendum passed, and then Dell shed its jobs in Limerick. As a case for saying that the claim was a "lie", this is just laughable.

I am disappointed in the ridiculous attempt to try and paint a critic of the ''yes for jobs'' campaign as a liar.
The point is that only a magic wand could make those obvious lies become true. ''Yes for jobs'' was a lie. It was false advertising just before a quarter of a million people lost their jobs or emigrated. It was false advertising just before the largest loss of employment in one go in the history of the whole country.

Rightwing

masculinist wrote: »

You have put the cart before the horse.

The unreasonable thing is to promise jobs when you dont have any to give. That was scare mongering. Scaremongering using lies and promises which they knew had nothing to back them up. You cant promise everyone jobs especially back in 2007/8 when a quarter of a million were losing their jobs. Thats nonsense.






I am disappointed in the ridiculous attempt to try and paint a critic of the ''yes for jobs'' campaign as a liar.
The point is that only a magic wand could make those obvious lies become true. ''Yes for jobs'' was a lie. It was false advertising just before a quarter of a million people lost their jobs or emigrated. It was false advertising just before the largest loss of employment in one go in the history of the whole country.

What about all the IDA jobs that have come in this year then? Looks like a record number.

Radiosonde

Peregrinus wrote: »

I've no idea. I haven't followed that particular controversy. Perhaps now he is better informed about what the consequences of abolishing them would be and, with that better information, he no longer thinks abolishing them would be wise?

And here we run across a perennial problem. Politicians in opposition have limited access to the impartial expert advice of the civil service, and they have a strong incentive to make promises which have superficial populist appeal. With almost any promise made in opposition, by the time the moment comes to deliver on the promise, the politician almost always has better information than he had when he made the promise, and he also has an awareness that he is going to have to wear the consequences of following through on his promise. So we shouldn't be at all surprised if, in the cold light of day, a fair proportion of election promises are deep-sixed. Truth to tell, we should probably be grateful. And perhaps one day we'll learn the stupidity of electing politicians on the basis of ill-thought-out populist gestures. If we stopped electing them on the basis of such promises, they'd stop making them.

Do we elect them on the basis of "populist promises" though? The main plank of FG and FF policy in the last election was the supposedly unpopular austerity agenda. Between them, the two main austerity parties won most of the vote, with the more circumspect Labour losing ground in the polls as the vote drew nearer.

There's an awful lot of sneering at "populism" at the moment, but it seems to me a) not borne out by actual election results, and b) tending to underestimate the sophistication of voters, who probably are quite aware that preelection promises are just part of political theatrics, a performance of profound disagreement in a climate of little substantive political debate.

Rightwing

Radiosonde wrote: »

Do we elect them on the basis of "populist promises" though? The main plank of FG and FF policy in the last election was the supposedly unpopular austerity agenda. Between them, the two main austerity parties won most of the vote, with the more circumspect Labour losing ground in the polls as the vote drew nearer.

There's an awful lot of sneering at "populism" at the moment, but it seems to me a) not borne out by actual election results, and b) tending to underestimate the sophistication of voters, who probably are quite aware that preelection promises are just part of political theatrics, a performance of profound disagreement in a climate of little substantive political debate.

That's not how I would describe voters.

masculinist

Rightwing wrote: »

What about all the IDA jobs that have come in this year then? Looks like a record number.

You mean poorly paid highly taxed [highly mobile so they can go to Poland tomorrow] jobs subsidized by dipping into the pockets of those who can least afford to pay ? Our government should be supporting small businesses,not multinationals. For small businesses the profit stays in the country . It gets used to pay for goods and services, schools for the businessowners kids etc. These days a small business cant keep its doors open. Only charity shops are multiplying as they dont have to pay rates.

We did not follow their lead in the EU and negotiate anything worthwhile for ourselves. We could have at least looked at their small business economy. Denmark knows about small business :

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/smallbusiness/0809/gallery.best_countries_for_business.smb/5.html

Quin_Dub

masculinist wrote: »

You mean poorly paid highly taxed [highly mobile so they can go to Poland tomorrow] jobs subsidized by dipping into the pockets of those who can least afford to pay ? Our government should be supporting small businesses,not multinationals. For small businesses the profit stays in the country . It gets used to pay for goods and services, schools for the businessowners kids etc. These days a small business cant keep its doors open. Only charity shops are multiplying as they dont have to pay rates.

We did not follow their lead in the EU and negotiate anything worthwhile for ourselves. We could have at least looked at their small business economy. Denmark knows about small business :

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/smallbusiness/0809/gallery.best_countries_for_business.smb/5.html

So , you call out Denmark (5 best place in the world to start a business) as "Knowing about Small business" based on the above article....

The same article that puts Ireland just 2 places lower at 7th in the world... I don't follow the point you're making with the link?

masculinist

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So , you call out Denmark (5 best place in the world to start a business) as "Knowing about Small business" based on the above article....

The same article that puts Ireland just 2 places lower at 7th in the world... I don't follow the point you're making with the link?

you are right. any article which elevates Ireland above Denmark is full of it.



Maybe an article like this will keep your happy


http://www.irishexaminerusa.com/mt/2006/07/19/ireland_is_the_worlds_second_r.html

As an aside it's interesting what this article says about 2015. You wont get them trying to talk down the economy for 2015 these days. 2015 was far away enough for them back then

Peregrinus

Radiosonde wrote: »

Do we elect them on the basis of "populist promises" though? . . . underestimate the sophistication of voters, who probably are quite aware that preelection promises are just part of political theatrics, a performance of profound disagreement in a climate of little substantive political debate.

You may have a point there. Most voters may appreciate that election promises are a part of traditional election theatre, like posters on the lampposts. They may fully appreciate that all such promises are at best provisional.

Peregrinus

masculinist wrote: »

You have put the cart before the horse.

The unreasonable thing is to promise jobs when you dont have any to give. That was scare mongering. Scaremongering using lies and promises which they knew had nothing to back them up. You cant promise everyone jobs especially back in 2007/8 when a quarter of a million were losing their jobs. Thats nonsense.

Again, anyone who would say that “the government promised everyone jobs” back in 2007/08 would himself be telling a lie. The government made no such promise.

Something like “if elected to office I will open a new public hospital in every county town in Ireland” is a promise. But “Yes to Europe - Yes to Jobs” is a slogan. And the idea that it encapsulates, most speakers of English will readily grasp, is not “I guarantee that if the Treaty passes I will give everyone a job”. It’s “if the Treaty passes the climate for creating and sustaining employment will be better than if it does not pass”.

That’s not a promise; it’s a prediction. A politician can no more promise a positive economic outcome than he can promise fine weather. He can advocate policies that he thinks or hope will improve economic conditions. But, even if you think his judgment is wrong on this, and even if subsequent events fail to bear out his prediction and show your scepticism to have been justified, that does not convert his prediction into a “lie”; it was just a belief that you didn’t share (or that you did share at the time, but no longer do). I don’t think a discussion about politicians lying is helped by trying to pretend that every policy that doesn’t work out as hoped is a “lie”.

masculinist

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, anyone who would say that “the government promised everyone jobs” back in 2007/08 would himself be telling a lie. The government made no such promise.

Something like “if elected to office I will open a new public hospital in every county town in Ireland” is a promise. But “Yes to Europe - Yes to Jobs” is a slogan. And the idea that it encapsulates, most speakers of English will readily grasp, is not “I guarantee that if the Treaty passes I will give everyone a job”. It’s “if the Treaty passes the climate for creating and sustaining employment will be better than if it does not pass”.

That’s not a promise; it’s a prediction. A politician can no more promise a positive economic outcome than he can promise fine weather. He can advocate policies that he thinks or hope will improve economic conditions. But, even if you think his judgment is wrong on this, and even if subsequent events fail to bear out his prediction and show your scepticism to have been justified, that does not convert his prediction into a “lie”; it was just a belief that you didn’t share (or that you did share at the time, but no longer do). I don’t think a discussion about politicians lying is helped by trying to pretend that every policy that doesn’t work out as hoped is a “lie”.

I cant believe you are defending that. Your defence is just another example of the malfunction which allowed them to get away with it in the first place. There was absolutely no provision to create jobs in the Lisbon treaty in any part of it. There was probably no other moment in the history of the state when jobs were more scarce on the ground. That slogan exploited peoples fears. It really exploited the fears of those who still had their jobs because they wanted to hold onto what they had while Rome burned around them and damn everyone else.

Peregrinus

masculinist wrote: »

I cant believe you are defending that. Your defence is just another example of the malfunction which allowed them to get away with it in the first place. There was absolutely no provision to create jobs in the Lisbon treaty in any part of it. There was probably no other moment in the history of the state when jobs were more scarce on the ground. That slogan exploited peoples fears. It really exploited the fears of those who still had their jobs because they wanted to hold onto what they had while Rome burned around them and damn everyone else.

I'm not defending it. I'm saying that just because you or I or both of us disagree with it, and disagreed with it at the time, doesn't make it a "lie".

Rightwing

There is so much Government can't do right, in fact so much, it would be better to concentrate on the few things they can do. So one of the few areas where I wouldn't be critical of them was that Treaty and jobs promise.

masculinist

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not defending it. I'm saying that just because you or I or both of us disagree with it, and disagreed with it at the time, doesn't make it a "lie".

This is like the old ''the money was resting in my account'' nonsense.Being complicit in something wrong yet saying nothing is like being an accessory to a crime. They were perfectly happy for people to believe it was a promise not to be broken. That makes them liars. Thats what it amounts to.