View Full Version : Corruption in politics
Are British politicians corrupt, and, if so, what should be done about it?
Firstly, I would say that outright, blatant corruption is almost unknown in British politics. Britain is always amongst the lowest in comparisons of corruption, and such things as public officials taking bribes are very rare events.
However, it cannot be denied that indirect corruption exists, for example in the undue influence certain large corporations have over such things as tax breaks, and in the access to politicians given both to senior businessmen and to certain sections of the media. It's not a simple case of 'pay my party lots of money and we'll do whatever you like', but it sometimes approaches that.
In some ways this is inevitable, and has always been the case. Money equals power, and power equals influence. Plus, of course, senior businessmen should have the right to raise concerns about government policies, since anti-business legislation is in nobody's interest. However, the main change in recent years is that funding, for the Tory party in particular, now comes almost exclusively from large corporations; individual membership has plummeted, with the result that increasingly, there is a disconnect between the voters and the political parties. On the Labour side, money comes largely from the tradeunions, who in turn then have a disproportionate access to, and influence over, politicians. The 'Punch and Judy' politics that results has put most people off politics.
Campaigns to 'clean up politics' and 'root out corruption' have, historically, often had unforseen consequences; often that the admittedly imperfect, and arguably corrupt, are replaced by even worse types who hijack the entire democratic system and end up as dictators.
So, how do we avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater? I would suggest that state (ie taxpayer) funding of political parties is the best way of removing the risk of undue influence from lobbyists and vested interests. Funding should be allocated proportionally based on share of the popular vote. In parallel, there should be some form of proportional representation, to avoid the two big parties dominating politics, and spending their term of office blaming everything on 'the other lot'. There should be much closer scrutiny of access to ministers by powerful groups and individuals, and a limit on donations from such groups and individuals. The Honours system should be reformed, so that people can't get honours just for pumping money into a political party.
Ricky Tomlinson now telling his story on BBC1 TV - much more to come out of this I believe - watch that space.
Dave.
Ricky Tomlinson now telling his story on BBC1 TV - much more to come out of this I believe - watch that space.
Dave.
My arse!
My arse!
That's no image to suggest whilst I'm having my breakfast!!:lol: .
More seriously though, since seeing the OP, the following has occurred to me:
Most of the leaders around the 'undeveloped' world, that is 'targets' for the Western world to democratise (and turn to capitalism), are the wealthy, privileged, educated intellectuals and clerics. Many of these guys (no gals ;) ) see the western democracies for the corrupt sham that they are. When faced with swapping their current system for one like ours, is there any wonder their response is something along the lines of, "Over my dead body" and making a call to arms to defend themselves from Western imperialism. And who can blame them, given their PoV.
Before we try to sort out the rest of the world's problems perhaps we should make a serious attempt to sort out our own? We might be a bit more welcome then around the world if and when we offer to sort out their's?
Dave.
Are British politicians corrupt, and, if so, what should be done about it?
Firstly, I would say that outright, blatant corruption is almost unknown in British politics. Britain is always amongst the lowest in comparisons of corruption, and such things as public officials taking bribes are very rare events.
However, it cannot be denied that indirect corruption exists, for example in the undue influence certain large corporations have over such things as tax breaks, and in the access to politicians given both to senior businessmen and to certain sections of the media. It's not a simple case of 'pay my party lots of money and we'll do whatever you like', but it sometimes approaches that.
In some ways this is inevitable, and has always been the case. Money equals power, and power equals influence. Plus, of course, senior businessmen should have the right to raise concerns about government policies, since anti-business legislation is in nobody's interest. However, the main change in recent years is that funding, for the Tory party in particular, now comes almost exclusively from large corporations; individual membership has plummeted, with the result that increasingly, there is a disconnect between the voters and the political parties. On the Labour side, money comes largely from the tradeunions, who in turn then have a disproportionate access to, and influence over, politicians. The 'Punch and Judy' politics that results has put most people off politics.
Campaigns to 'clean up politics' and 'root out corruption' have, historically, often had unforseen consequences; often that the admittedly imperfect, and arguably corrupt, are replaced by even worse types who hijack the entire democratic system and end up as dictators.
So, how do we avoid throwing out the baby with the bathwater? I would suggest that state (ie taxpayer) funding of political parties is the best way of removing the risk of undue influence from lobbyists and vested interests. Funding should be allocated proportionally based on share of the popular vote. In parallel, there should be some form of proportional representation, to avoid the two big parties dominating politics, and spending their term of office blaming everything on 'the other lot'. There should be much closer scrutiny of access to ministers by powerful groups and individuals, and a limit on donations from such groups and individuals. The Honours system should be reformed, so that people can't get honours just for pumping money into a political party.
The bold part,should of happened years ago but sadly that won't happen.
No! Why should I pay to fund a political party that I have no interest in and do not support? That is like me asking taxpayers to support my box-swapping habit. Political parties are not part of 'The State' they are private organisations. At the moment anyone can start one. if you introduce state funding then only parties approved by the state would be viable. Not a good idea.
Anyone who reads Private Eye regularly will know that corruption and nepotism is rife but big business paying/lobbying political parties for favours is really only a fraction of it. It dismays me that people seem to be under the impression that there is comparatively little corruption in this country. That is what they want you to think. In fact it is rife and most of it is technically legal - e.g Execs who resign from County or Metropolitan councils, get six figure pay offs, then go straight into another six figure salaried post at another council. No-one involved rocks the boat because at some point it will be their turn to be hosed down with our money.
Personally i don't want murdoch running the country.
Mr T would be cool though.
Mr T wouldn't suffer fools. He would pity them though...
If individuals want a fairer governmental system then it is incumbent upon them to become a fully paid up member of a political party. Joe has hit the nail on the head: With dwindling membership the various parties have had to source their income from elsewhere and that 'elsewhere' is going to involve corporations with vested interests.
So ban corporations from funding political parties then. Here's a novel idea, why don't the people in the political parties use their own money to run them?
So ban corporations from funding political parties then. Here's a novel idea, why don't the people in the political parties use their own money to run them?
No Martin that would be idealistic as is your assertation that politicians should dig into their own pockets to fund their careers, would you for example? In essence we pay politicians to do our dirty work for us, directly and indirectly, which is as it should be. A politicians salary is pretty poor when stacked up against the salary for an equivalent level of responsibility within the private sector, and therein lies part of the problem. We want our politicians to up their game and yet we are not willing to pay them sufficiently to achieve this goal, so is it any wonder that some of them stray off the beaten track occasionally. Doesn't make it right of course, however if there was less political apathy in the country as a whole we might actually get the politicians we would like rather than those which we currently deserve, if you get my meaning ;)
You think they should get a higher salary? It is already £65K plus £100K expenses. If they can do better in the private sector then they are very welcome to try. Most of them would be lucky to get a job paying minimum wage.
If somone is bent then they are bent they will take a bung or have a fiddle no matter how rich they are (c.f 'expenses scandal').
Anyway the OP is about funding political parties, not the same thing as MP's salaries.
No! Why should I pay to fund a political party that I have no interest in and do not support? That is like me asking taxpayers to support my box-swapping habit. Political parties are not part of 'The State' they are private organisations. At the moment anyone can start one. if you introduce state funding then only parties approved by the state would be viable. Not a good idea.
Up until recently that was my view, too. But the trouble with the present system is that almost all the money, and thus all the influence, goes to one party. Under my proposal, parties could only gain more funds by attracting more votes, so it would be in their interest to address the needs of the majority rather than those of the rich/influential few.
The Labour Government from 1997 to 2010 wasn't imaginary so all the money and inflluence cannot be going one way. And linking revenue to votes, surely that is a bad idea, they already lie and make promises they can't keep to get votes how bad would it become if they got money too?
Canetoad
24-09-2014, 04:44
Personally i don't want murdoch running the country.
Mr T would be cool though.
People like him already are!
Many years ago Australian media mogul Kerry Packer was asked which political party he was going to back in the next election. His answer? Both!
In essence the current human political psyche is a more sophisticated example of that which generally exists throughout the higher Primate community, one of the differences being that our human example encompasses far larger groups. One wonders whether these groups are too large for it to work effectively. Our command of language and ability to debate obviously negates some of these disadvantages but even so, our recent proclivity to gather already large governances into 'super-unions' can only exacerbate the situation as it places the individual citizen at a greater distance from the seat of government leading to further disenfranchisement. In this respect a decentralised government must be the solution to the current political apathy endemic within the population. A good first step would be for the UK pull out of the EU followed swiftly by the devolution of some governmental powers to the various regions around the country.
Some might suggest that this is at odds with my stance on the Scottish independence question but actually it is not. This can in fact be seen as a first step down that road due to David Cameron's promise to give Scotland swingeing devolutionary powers. Should this strategy proceed as intended then we should observe it closely as it could be the model for further devolved regional powers. Personally I shall be watching this with interest.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.