Private school fees in minister's funding claims'

[Nearly Sane]

Ridiculous piece of lying.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45738158

[ProfessorDavey]

And university tuition fees.

Now in a manner of speaking this is correct ... but only if the question you are answering is how much money (from whatever source) is spent on education in the UK. But that didn't appear to be the question he was answering, which was clearly about public funding, and more specifically about schools, as he is the schools minister.

Actually overall spending is often used for international comparison purposes - so for example total health spending as a portion of GDP is often cited, regardless of the source. This is important as different countries have completely different ways of funding healthcare, ranging from our NHS through to exclusively private insurance-type schemes. Only by looking at total funding can relevant comparisons be made, and you can also look as 'bangs per buck' - outcomes related to the total expenditure.

[Nearly Sane]

And university tuition fees.

Now in a manner of speaking this is correct ... but only if the question you are answering is how much money (from whatever source) is spent on education in the UK. But that didn't appear to be the question he was answering, which was clearly about public funding, and more specifically about schools, as he is the schools minister.

Actually overall spending is often used for international comparison purposes - so for example total health spending as a portion of GDP is often cited, regardless of the source. This is important as different countries have completely different ways of funding healthcare, ranging from our NHS through to exclusively private insurance-type schemes. Only by looking at total funding can relevant comparisons be made, and you can also look as 'bangs per buck' - outcomes related to the total expenditure.

Er, no, lying by obfuscation is still lying. Other uses of figures which might be used in other contexts are not correct here in any manner of speaking.

[ProfessorDavey]

Er, no, lying by obfuscation is still lying. Other uses of figures which might be used in other contexts are not correct here in any manner of speaking.

I think you need to be careful about banding the word lying around left, right and centre.

I have no time for the Tories, and his answer was disingenuous and demonstrated dishonesty, but he didn't lie - he chose to give an answer to a different question, but the answer was factually correct - I suspect the UK is the third higher spender on education in the OECD. The problem is that this wasn't the question asked.

So it is a bit like being asked which team has won the premiership the most, and answering by making a statement that Chelsea have won the premier league on five occasions - that is a correct statement, but not an answer to the question. There is no lying, but there is dishonesty.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you need to be careful about banding the word lying around left, right and centre.

I have no time for the Tories, and his answer was disingenuous and demonstrated dishonesty, but he didn't lie - he chose to give an answer to a different question, but the answer was factually correct - I suspect the UK is the third higher spender on education in the OECD. The problem is that this wasn't the question asked.

So it is a bit like being asked which team has won the premiership the most, and answering by making a statement that Chelsea have won the premier league on five occasions - that is a correct statement, but not an answer to the question. There is no lying, but there is dishonesty.

It's factually incorrect and deliberately so to the question asked. If there is a deliberate dishonesty then that is lying.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's factually incorrect and deliberately so to the question asked.

No, actually what he said was factually correct - the UK is the third largest spender on education in the OECD. He was being dishonest as that statement (however factually correct) was not an answer to the question.

If there is a deliberate dishonesty then that is lying.

I disagree - lying is deliberately making a statement you know to be incorrect. Deliberate dishonesty isn't necessarily lying.

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.

[Nearly Sane]

No, actually what he said was factually correct - the UK is the third largest spender on education in the OECD. He was being dishonest as that statement (however factually correct) was not an answer to the question.
I disagree - lying is deliberately making a statement you know to be incorrect. Deliberate dishonesty isn't necessarily lying.

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.

A lie is a deliberately dishonest statement. So you would indeed be lying.

[ProfessorDavey]

A lie is a deliberately dishonest statement. So you would indeed be lying.

No it isn't - for it to be a lie it needs to be untruthful or incorrect. There are plenty of statements that might be deliberately dishonest, but aren't lying. My example being a case in point - I wouldn't have said anything that was untrue or untruthful, therefore no lie. I would be being dishonest and deliberately unhelpful, but that is a different matter.

In the case in point - the Department for Education put out a statement in response to the Headteachers protests. It contained two facts (that funding on schools was at record levels and that the UK was the third highest spender on education in the OECD) - both statements are actually factually correct, but are deeply unhelpful in the context of the debate and disingenuous and dishonest in my view. However there is no lying as nothing factually incorrect or untruthful was said.

[Nearly Sane]

No it isn't - for it to be a lie it needs to be untruthful or incorrect. There are plenty of statements that might be deliberately dishonest, but aren't lying. My example being a case in point - I wouldn't have said anything that was untrue or untruthful, therefore no lie. I would be being dishonest and deliberately unhelpful, but that is a different matter.

In the case in point - the Department for Education put out a statement in response to the Headteachers protests. It contained two facts (that funding on schools was at record levels and that the UK was the third highest spender on education in the OECD) - both statements are actually factually correct, but are deeply unhelpful in the context of the debate and disingenuous and dishonest in my view. However there is no lying as nothing factually incorrect or untruthful was said.

Dishonest is untruthful

[ProfessorDavey]

Dishonest is untruthful

Not necessarily. But lying is about deliberately making untruthful or false statements - dishonesty and lying aren't interchangeable.

Another example - John has noted his girlfriend Sarah is acting strangely and suspects she is having an affair with his friend. John confronts Sarah and asks whether she is having an affair with his friend Mick. Sarah answers 'no' - actually she is having an affair with Joe from work. Sarah has been dishonest, she hasn't lie

[Nearly Sane]

Not necessarily. But lying is about deliberately making untruthful or false statements - dishonesty and lying aren't interchangeable.

Another example - John has noted his girlfriend Sarah is acting strangely and suspects she is having an affair with his friend. John confronts Sarah and asks whether she is having an affair with his friend Mick. Sarah answers 'no' - actually she is having an affair with Joe from work. Sarah has been dishonest, she hasn't lie

Nope she isn't being dishonest there. She is telling the truth. The minister however chose to answer a different question. That is the dishonesty and lying, and where your analogy here is specious.

[Rhiannon]

Whatever it is, it's despicable.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope she isn't being dishonest there.

Blimey - I worry about your social interactions if you don't think she is being dishonest.

She is telling the truth.

True, but she is still being dishonest. Lying is a subset of dishonest behaviour - so in effect if you are lying, you are being dishonest - but you can be dishonest without lying.

In my example Sarah is being dishonest, but she isn't lying. You seem to equate the two which might explain you propensity to accuse others on this MB of lying at the drop of a hat. Ho hum.

[ProfessorDavey]

Whatever it is, it's despicable.

I agree, but I also think we need to be cautious in how we call people out. If we accuse people of lying, when they aren't although being dishonest and disingenuous then we devalue the power of the accusation of lying. If it simply becomes a term we throw at people whose views we don't like, as increasingly occurs, its power is lost.

And back on topic, no doubt they will be slapped down by the Office for National Statistics for inappropriate use of statistical data - what the department released was factually accurate but meaningless and dishonest as a response to criticism about school funding.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Ridiculous piece of lying.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45738158

Not sure if this lying as such, more of a case of what is in English Law a "half truth".

[Steve H]

On the subject of lying, I do get fed up with a few posters on here continually accusing other posters of lying. It's childish, it gets people's backs up unnecessarily, and it is much more likely that the accusee is honestly mistaken - or indeed that the accuser is. Could we adopt the parliamentary protocol of disllowing accusations of lying?

[ProfessorDavey]

On the subject of lying, I do get fed up with a few posters on here continually accusing other posters of lying. It's childish, it gets people's backs up unnecessarily, and it is much more likely that the accusee is honestly mistaken - or indeed that the accuser is. Could we adopt the parliamentary protocol of disllowing accusations of lying?

I agree and the originator of this thread (which makes an incorrect accusation of lying in its OPS) is, sadly, a prime culprit.

I think there are times when accusations of lying are perfectly justified but too often it is used as a response to a comment that someone either doesn't like or doesn't agree with. Even when someone says something that is demonstrable and factually wrong, that doesn't mean that they are, necessarily, lying. To be lying they need to know that their statement is wrong and deliberately made it in that knowledge. Sometimes the person making the statement is the result of misinformation or lack of understanding which means they aren't lying but may still make a factually incorrect statement.

Also I think there are many types of overt or less overt dishonesty demonstrated here. The most often being selective quoting, misrepresentation of others posts, being disingenuous or seemingly deliberate failure to answer questions. All may be dishonest but none are necessarily lying.

[Rhiannon]

Nope she isn't being dishonest there. She is telling the truth. The minister however chose to answer a different question. That is the dishonesty and lying, and where your analogy here is specious.

Agree with this as it happens.

[Steve H]

Dishonest is untruthful

Not necessarily: you can make sa statement that is technically true, but deliberately misleading. For example, if someone said "I went to Oxford, and got an upper second", when they got their degree from Oxford Brookes University, which is not as impressive as one from Oxford University. They haven't technically told a lie, but have deliberately given the wrong impression.

[Rhiannon]

We are getting way of subject here. But I think it is an important one.

Misleading and deceiving are forms of dishonesty that are designed to make someone believe in something that isn't so. In that sense they aren't any different from lying. It is outrageous for the Government to use a statistic in the way that they have, to attempt to deceive the electorate into thinking that something is different from what t actually is. We know that implicit in there is that the spending has come from the government, when in fact a lot of it is private money. It's a lie by omission.

If we take this forum, selective quoting, misrepresenting, goalpost moving etc are deliberate acts of deception and with misrepresentation in particular often involve lying. But even if they aren't 'lies' by some dictionary definition, they are very often deliberately dishonest acts that break down trust and that are often designed to make someone believe in a falsehood. I think we all accept that people do these things here because winning an argument seems to matter more to some than acting well. But the consequence of this is that people then appear untrustworthy and, by extension, they appear to be deceivers and liars. I find people wanting to manipulate me into thinking and believing in things that are false to be tedious and annoying, and so I'm with NS is calling them out for the liars that they are.

[Gordon]

I find people wanting to manipulate me into thinking and believing in things that are false to be tedious and annoying, and so I'm with NS is calling them out for the liars that they are.

Me too: presenting information that is knowingly framed in a particular way with the intention of misleading or misinforming others as regards an accurate state of affairs, as opposed to making an honest mistake, isn't just being 'economical with the truth' - it's overt lying, and to say so is fair comment in my book.

[ProfessorDavey]

We are getting way of subject here. But I think it is an important one.

Misleading and deceiving are forms of dishonesty that are designed to make someone believe in something that isn't so. In that sense they aren't any different from lying. It is outrageous for the Government to use a statistic in the way that they have, to attempt to deceive the electorate into thinking that something is different from what t actually is. We know that implicit in there is that the spending has come from the government, when in fact a lot of it is private money. It's a lie by omission.

I disagree - there are all sort of types of dishonesty, not all are lying and we need to be careful about 'overclaiming' in our criticism - in effect accusing someone of lying when they are not, in fact, lying.

And this is all the more important when you are criticising someone of over claiming themselves (which is what the Government are doing) - if you also over claim in your criticism you simply place yourself on the same playing field as them. Also by accusing the Government of lying you had them an easy victory, because they can easily say 'no we aren't' and provide clear evidence that their claims were factually true. They do no deserve to be let off so easily.

In fact the Government have just go an unprecedented roasting from the UK Statistics Authority on this and a couple of other incidents on Education. The UKSA didn't accuse them of lying - to do so would have been easily rebutted by the Government as their claims are true. No they were much more targeted and appropriate in their criticism, accusing the Government of misusing data, exaggeration and undermining confidence. These are rebukes the Government cannot easily bat away, unlike a claim of lying which can be easily disproved.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's a lie by omission.

Yes you also seem to think (correct me if I am wrong) that Sarah isn't being dishonest in my earlier affair example. I am confused - if the government are lying by omission (and therefore being dishonest) then surely so is Sarah.

For the record I believe that both the Government and Sarah are being dishonest - I don't think that either have lied.

[Rhiannon]

Yes you also seem to think (correct me if I am wrong) that Sarah isn't being dishonest in my earlier affair example. I am confused - if the government are lying by omission (and therefore being dishonest) then surely so is Sarah.

For the record I believe that both the Government and Sarah are being dishonest - I don't think that either have lied.

The minister's response was directly to heads warning of funding shortages. To respond with a statistic that includes funding that goes nowhere near school funds is a lie.

Sarah did answer the question truthfully. Should she have added a 'however, I am having an affair with...' as a direct answer to that question? That's another matter. If you think about it cheating on someone is one big fat lie anyway.

[ProfessorDavey]

The minister's response was directly to heads warning of funding shortages. To respond with a statistic that includes funding that goes nowhere near school funds is a lie.

Actually that isn't quite correct - the minister was not responding to a direct question. He made a statement in response to the Head teachers protests about school funding. In that statement he made 2 claims. The first was that Government school funding was at record levels. This is factually true and superficially an entirely relevant response. However the devil is in the detail - so he failed to indicate whether this is a record in real terms (taking account of inflation etc) or just in cash terms (it is the latter) - he failed to recognise that pupil numbers are higher so funding per pupil is down, not to take account of changes to NI and pension costs that increase expenditure. So it wasn't a lie, but was misinterpretation of data and clear 'spin'.

He then went on to claim that the UK was third in terms of spending on Education in OECD countries - true but irrelevant.

As I've said before, accusing his of lying just gives him an easy 'win' as he can demonstrate beyond doubt that both those claims are true. He cannot be allowed to get off so easily - the criticism needs to be much more appropriated and targeted and not allow him to simply deny it. That's what the UKSA have done - but an accusation of lying will simply be countered by 'no I'm not' and do you know what, he is correct on that.