Private school fees in minister's funding claims'

[Rhiannon]

I don't agree. We are being lied to and treated like idiots. What kind of society do we want? One where someone can say 'ah, but it is factually truthful' or one where lying and deception are the same thing? It's splitting hairs that lets them get away with it.

Just like people on this forum treat each other appallingly. Trying to mislead is just disrespectful and dishonest. I can see why people choose to walk away.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't agree. We are being lied to and treated like idiots. What kind of society do we want? One where someone can say 'ah, but it is factually truthful' or one where lying and deception are the same thing? It's splitting hairs that lets them get away with it.

One in which we call people out when they lie, but we don't call them liars when they haven't actually lied.

And one where we call people out for being dishonest, deceptive, disingenuous, misrepresenting etc - but to make those accusations 'fit the crime' - an accusation of lying is a strong one and should only be used when a person is actually lying - in other words deliberately saying something that isn't true and knowing it isn't true.

Accusations of lying, to my mind, have become devalued currency - they are thrown around all the time, and in many if not most cases the accusation is used when someone isn't lying at all.

[Gordon]

If I say 'x' in response to a question and I know that 'x' is an incomplete answer to the question asked, and I also conclude that the person I am responding to is likely to accept that my answer of 'x' is a complete answer to the question they asked, and I am further aware that I am knowingly misleading them, then clearly I am not telling the truth in relation to the context of the question asked of me: so I am telling a lie when I say 'x', when I could have more accurately said 'x', but please note that 'x' includes or excludes 'y'. 

[ProfessorDavey]

... so I am telling a lie when I say 'x', when I could have more accurately said 'x', but please note that 'x' includes or excludes 'y'.

I doubt many of us add all the additional caveats and 'small print' that you seem to be expecting which means we are all lying loads of the time.

So lets address the current case:

Headteachers are protesting over school funding cuts

Government claims school funding is at record levels

How do we square the circle:

Well because the Headteachers are talking about real-terms per pupil funding, while the Government is talking about total cash funding.

Point being in your example unless the Heads make is clear that they are talking about real-terms per pupil funding and not cash funding levels then they are lying. Unless the government makes it clear that they are talking about cash funding levels and not real-terms per pupil funding then they are lying.

In my view neither are lying, both are making correct claims but ones that open to interpretation - of course I am with the Heads, as it is real-terms per pupil funding that is important, but unless they are absolutely clear in stating that, by your interpretation the Heads are lying.

[Steve H]

If I say 'x' in response to a question and I know that 'x' is an incomplete answer to the question asked, and I also conclude that the person I am responding to is likely to accept that my answer of 'x' is a complete answer to the question they asked, and I am further aware that I am knowingly misleading them, then clearly I am not telling the truth in relation to the context of the question asked of me: so I am telling a lie when I say 'x', when I could have more accurately said 'x', but please note that 'x' includes or excludes 'y'.

I think you're using your own private definition of "truth" here! Telling part of the truth, but leaving out important information, is not lying by any normal definition. That's why, in court, you swear to, or affirm that you will, tell not only the truth but the whole truth.

[Gordon]

I think you're using your own private definition of "truth" here! Telling part of the truth, but leaving out important information, is not lying by any normal definition. That's why, in court, you swear to, or affirm that you will, tell not only the truth but the whole truth.

Else you perjure yourself, which in England and Wales involves making a statement in judicial proceedings that you do not believe to be true.

Perjury is a statutory offence in England and Wales. It is created by section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911. Section 1 of that Act reads:

(1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to imprisonment . . . for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

Pretend I'm a self-employed plumber and it is time for the annual tax return: if I declare my income was £28,000 and have the documentation to support this but I don't include the £8,500 I earning 'cash in hand' then I'm lying, in that I am knowingly providing false information to the tax authorities.

To say I earned £28,000 when I'd actually earned £36,500 would be telling a lie.

[Steve H]

To say I earned £28,000 when I'd actually earned £36,500 would be telling a lie.

Well, obviously, but what's that to the purpose?

[Gordon]

Well, obviously, but what's that to the purpose?

It is a similar scenario to the situation involving school funding issue in the OP link, albeit the other way round numerically: if I say I donated £100 to the kitty, and in doing so gave the impression the £100 was all mine in the first place, when in fact the £100 included £20 from another source that I neglected to mention, then I'd be lying if I insisted the £100 came wholly from my resources.

[Udayana]

It is a similar scenario to the situation involving school funding issue in the OP link, albeit the other way round numerically: if I say I donated £100 to the kitty, and in doing so gave the impression the £100 was all mine in the first place, when in fact the £100 included £20 from another source that I neglected to mention, then I'd be lying if I insisted the £100 came wholly from my resources.

Your example statements are actually untrue, so are lies, but different to the deceptive diversionary dissembling of the minister. Now, we could call him a liar but that adds no value, we need to show how his statement is wrong and his use of it dishonest. 

[Rhiannon]

Your example statements are actually untrue, so are lies, but different to the deceptive diversionary dissembling of the minister. Now, we could call him a liar but that adds no value, we need to show how his statement is wrong and his use of it dishonest.

In context, when the head teachers are protesting about government cuts, to use figures that include money that isn't from the government is dishonest.

[Udayana]

In context, when the head teachers are protesting about government cuts, to use figures that include money that isn't from the government is dishonest.

Well, quite. And that observation is far more useful than just calling him a liar (and thus getting into a long pedantic argument about what is or is not lying).

[ProfessorDavey]

It is a similar scenario to the situation involving school funding issue in the OP link, albeit the other way round numerically: if I say I donated £100 to the kitty, and in doing so gave the impression the £100 was all mine in the first place, when in fact the £100 included £20 from another source that I neglected to mention, then I'd be lying if I insisted the £100 came wholly from my resources.

Perhaps so, but that isn't an equivalent analogy.

The Government minister never insisted that the spending that meant that the UK was third in the OECD list for spending on education was all from the public purse, nor all for schools. Had he said that Government spending on schools ranks us 3rd in the OECD then he would have been lying - but he didn't.

A more correct analogy would be for Joe to say - look we have £100 in our kitty, that means we've got more money than all but two other similar kitties from 34 groups with kitties. You might, of course, imply this £100 to have come from Joe, but he never said that, and if the kitty does indeed contain £100 and is the third largest of the 34, then Joe wouldn't be lying.

[ProfessorDavey]

Your example statements are actually untrue, so are lies, but different to the deceptive diversionary dissembling of the minister. Now, we could call him a liar but that adds no value, we need to show how his statement is wrong and his use of it dishonest.

I agree and to accuse him of lying gives him an easy get out from challenge if he can demonstrate that what he said was, in fact, true.

[ProfessorDavey]

In context, when the head teachers are protesting about government cuts, to use figures that include money that isn't from the government is dishonest.

Quite it is dishonest, but the statement isn't a lie. Call it as it is - to accuse the minister of lying is a diversion and gets him off the hook as he can easily prove that his statement is, indeed, true. The issue isn't whether the statement is true or not (i.e. whether he lied or not) but whether it is relevant to the debate (it isn't) and whether there is dishonesty and misuse of data (there is).

[Rhiannon]

Well, quite. And that observation is far more useful than just calling him a liar (and thus getting into a long pedantic argument about what is or is not lying).

People have a choice over whether or not a pedantic argument matter for not. I find dishonesty and deceit appallingly bad and whatever name is given to it doesn't really matter. We deserve better.

[Udayana]

People have a choice over whether or not a pedantic argument matter for not. I find dishonesty and deceit appallingly bad and whatever name is given to it doesn't really matter. We deserve better.

We do indeed .. but can't really see how we get there.
 

[Rhiannon]

We do indeed .. but can't really see how we get there.

Maybe by banning anyone who wants to be a politician from actually being one?

[ProfessorDavey]

People have a choice over whether or not a pedantic argument matter for not. I find dishonesty and deceit appallingly bad and whatever name is given to it doesn't really matter. We deserve better.

Indeed - so lets challenge the government on the substance of the issue rather than making accusations that are tangential (at best) to the actual issue (school funding not whether or not a government minister lied) and at worst allow the government to simply refute the allegation and kind of take a moral high ground, on the basis that the claims made were actually true and not lies.

[jeremyp]

If I was asked whether there was a supermarket nearby where they could buy some milk. Let's suppose there isn't a supermarket for 5 miles, but there is a garage with a shop around the corner which sells milk. If I answered, 'the nearest supermarket is 5 miles away', I wouldn't be lying - I would be being deliberately dishonest.

If you understood the intent was really to find somewhere to buy milk, that would be a lie by omission. If not, I.e. if you believed they needed to find a supermarket and one that definitely had milk, that’s merely a misunderstanding.

Answering the question “where’s the nearest shop I can buy milk?” With “there is a supermarket five miles away” would be a lie, assuming you knew of the nearby garage.

Answering “what is the public spending?” With the figure for total spending is a flat out lie, unless you say it is the total spending in your answer.

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe by banning anyone who wants to be a politician from actually being one?

It is easy to have a go at politicians, and they don't help by making themselves easy targets.

But all those I know, in both local and national government are actually genuine in their desire to make a difference (I may disagree with their views on what that difference should be but I don't doubt their sincerity). Plus are also extremely hard working, again from my experience. And that included politicians I know from the Tories, Labour, LibDems and Greens.

[ProfessorDavey]

Answering “what is the public spending?” With the figure for total spending is a flat out lie, unless you say it is the total spending in your answer.

But they didn't though - they first made a claim on current governmental school funding, using a figure on cash funding which is correct but doesn't give an appropriate picture (in my opinion) as it isn't real terms funding per pupil.

Then made a secondary comment on education spending in the UK (note not government spending, that was never mentioned) being 3rd in the OECD (as a % of GDP). That is factually correct (i.e. not a lie) but completely irrelevant to the actual nature of the debate.

And actually neither claim was made in the form of answering a direct question - but in the form of a statement in response to the protests.

[jeremyp]

Then made a secondary comment on education spending in the UK (note not government spending, that was never mentioned) being 3rd in the OECD (as a % of GDP). That is factually correct (i.e. not a lie) but completely irrelevant to the actual nature of the debate.

But also meaningless. In terms of spending per capita and spending as a percentage of GDP, US health spending far outstrips ours. But their health “service” is actually worse than ours and regularly bankrupts its citizens.

If you want a meaningful measure, you have to incorporate outcomes.

[ProfessorDavey]

But also meaningless. In terms of spending per capita and spending as a percentage of GDP, US health spending far outstrips ours. But their health “service” is actually worse than ours and regularly bankrupts its citizens.

If you want a meaningful measure, you have to incorporate outcomes.

I agree.

[Rhiannon]

It is easy to have a go at politicians, and they don't help by making themselves easy targets.

But all those I know, in both local and national government are actually genuine in their desire to make a difference (I may disagree with their views on what that difference should be but I don't doubt their sincerity). Plus are also extremely hard working, again from my experience. And that included politicians I know from the Tories, Labour, LibDems and Greens.

And I wouldn’t know any, right? Because that seems to be implied here.

From personal experience I’ve liked the government members I’ve met and spent time with. Local MP is a waste of space. Local councillors are appallingly tribal. Am I convinced any of them do a good job? No, but that may be the system. Party politics, and this is probably where some of my cynicism comes from. I dislike tribalism.

[ProfessorDavey]

And I wouldn’t know any, right? Because that seems to be implied here.

Not at all. Why on earth would you jump to that conclusion. The very notion that I was talking about my experience of politicians I know implies a comparison with your experience of politicians you know

From personal experience I’ve liked the government members I’ve met and spent time with.

Do you think they should have been banned from being a politician then, which was the implication of your earlier comment.

Local MP is a waste of space. Local councillors are appallingly tribal. Am I convinced any of them do a good job? No, but that may be the system. Party politics, and this is probably where some of my cynicism comes from. I dislike tribalism.

Then why not put yourself forward instead - it is easy to criticise from the sidelines, but unless you are prepared to put yourself forward to see whether you could do any better then that criticism seems a touch hollow. Certainly local politics contains a healthy does of independents as councillors - you could be one of them.