Is the UK Parliament corrupt?

[InsaneApache]

Do I need a link? :inquisitive:

Is it?

[seireikhaan]

:laugh4:

Better question- is there anybody ruling who isn't corrupt in someway? Anywhere?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Is it?

Watch Yes, Minister ever?

[InsaneApache]

Watch Yes, Minister ever?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Xvy1r4Pm8&feature=PlayList&p=A4EA77DF98CC2C2E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=15

You'll love this from 25 years ago.

[KukriKhan]

Is the UK Parliament corrupt?

More than any other legi body?

And if they are, whatchagunnado? A couple hundred years ago over here, it was pichforks and torches, and declarations and gunpowder. Nowadays, it's "vote them out", or "whatchagunnado; it comes with the side salad, like breadsticks. Grin 'n bear it. There's nuttin you can do".

"Vote 'em out" I can live with, and actually prefer. The peaceful transfer of power via the voice of the citizenry is how it oughtta be, IMO. The "whatchagunnado" attitude bugs me to no end; it turns every citizen into a victim, desperately flinging about trying to master 'the system', so to be less a victim, more a guy in the know.

Does "corrupt" = propose and pass laws that result in personal gain to the law proposer/passer?

[KarlXII]

Find me a legislative body that is not corrupt, and I'll find you a legislature full of good liars.

[Incongruous]

In my honest opinion, I find the dictates of 1688 to be out-moded, Parliament has been living off 1688 for far too long. It has brought us to 2009, a time when the government can barely rally a regiment of people whom believe in its justness, no matter the party in power.
The destruction of the Lords, rather than the restructuring of it, has given the Commons far too much power, and it is towards the lower house which I point my finger at.

Either the Monarchy must be brought to have a more active role in the protection of the "constitution", or a proper entrenched, written constitution must be created. In which case I would be glad to see the Republic re-established.

Just and fancying wonder, but would that then mean that the time since the Restoration and the re-establishment of the Republic could be called the Inter(insert whatever Latin word is appropriate for Republic, Respublica?).

[rasoforos]

I like to see the bigger picture. Nowadays most 'democratic' countries are actually elected 'oligarchies' (since electing a parliament closely matches the Spartan oligarchic regime than the Athenian democracy).

This system has a great defect. The defect is that for political party in such a regime to be successful it has to act like a shoal of fish. That is, all MPs have to act as one and voice one opinion (or at least similar opinions). Years of climbing up the party ladder to becoming an MP makes sure that the vast majority of people who are prone to voicing their own opinion are weeded out. The end result is a parliament where 95% of the MP's will follow and vote according to the will of the party leader. Consequently their intended role (as wise(lol) people skilled in politics who are there to improve the state) is replaced by them being just 'votes'.

Consequently, since we (in theory) vote them to speak their minds, but they will not in order to reap the huge financial and social benefits of staying an MP, they are in essence corrupt by definition. The few 'backbenchers' who will vote by conscience and not by party guidelines are never enough to make a difference. They are just there to give the illusion of parliamentary free will.

I am not sure whether what I said makes sense but I did my best :beam:

[tibilicus]

Sure they are, but no where near to the same extent as a lot of countries. There's a big index somewhere and I think the UK comes about 12th, not bad considering.


If I remember correctly the least corrupt country is Sweden, in fact most of the Scandinavian regions have low corruption.

[rasoforos]

You are talking about the corruption perception index or CPI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index)



:2thumbsup:


I used the CPI for a model I made for my MSc thesis years ago. I think Krugman has done some nice research on corruption too.

[Fragony]

If I remember correctly the least corrupt country is Sweden, in fact most of the Scandinavian regions have low corruption.

They call it commisions and foundations there, it's institutionalised corruption, so much to gain from the system that you don't need to work around it, better to be part of the candyland. It doesn't really get any more corrupt then Sweden.

[Furunculus]

Sure they are, but no where near to the same extent as a lot of countries. There's a big index somewhere and I think the UK comes about 12th, not bad considering.


If I remember correctly the least corrupt country is Sweden, in fact most of the Scandinavian regions have low corruption.

that sums up my view nicely.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Bring back Cromwell. :yes:

I think Rasoforos more or less hit the nail on the head. People are starting to realise that Parliament will not reflect their views, there's been no significant ideological difference between the main parties for decades. This is why the likes of the BNP get votes - they actually believe in something. Same goes for the (totally ideologically different) SNP, they didn't get into power because we all like tartan and shortbread. People are getting sick of the Thatcherite parties.

[rory_20_uk]

I break the rules - massive penalty
MPs break the rules - unusual, since the rules are so weak. But if a "mistake" was made they'll be "sorry" and that's the end of it.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Bring back Cromwell. :yes:

I think Rasoforos more or less hit the nail on the head. People are starting to realise that Parliament will not reflect their views, there's been no significant ideological difference between the main parties for decades. This is why the likes of the BNP get votes - they actually believe in something. Same goes for the (totally ideologically different) SNP, they didn't get into power because we all like tartan and shortbread. People are getting sick of the Thatcherite parties.
And yet the overwhelming success of the Thatcherite society means no-one in their right minds will go against it. People who complain about selfish and corrupt politicians should understand that the society they love so much will naturally produce such people. Principled politicians who represent an ideology will be shunned because they are anathema to our commercialised society. We don't trust them to leave us alone. Politicians who are nothing more than managers will, however, be understandable in our worldview, and with some adjustments here and there, will manage to do some good while minimising the damage they can do. Is this bland and unexciting? Yes, but it's also what we can live with.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Xvy1r4Pm8&feature=PlayList&p=A4EA77DF98CC2C2E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=15

You'll love this from 25 years ago.

:yes:

I managed to watch every episode on YouTube before they took it down at least twice. I'm now looking for the DVDs at a reasonable price.

[Incongruous]

A proper Constitution, is all that is needed, if Parliament keeps on denying the people this basic right of modern society then it should be got rid of.

[rory_20_uk]

A proper Constitution, is all that is needed, if Parliament keeps on denying the people this basic right of modern society then it should be got rid of.

Yeah, worked really well in America... ~:joker:

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

it has worked very well for america.

[Incongruous]

Yeah, worked really well in America... ~:joker:

~:smoking:

That is the usual retort from my friends in Law school, it is not a very good one, I do not understand the lawyer's fixation with the current contitutional structure, oh wait, is because it then means normal people have to hire a lawyer just to get a glimpse at the full corpus? Yeah, probably, good grief, a constitutional structure only comprehendable (even in the most basic way) by lawyers. That is the only reason I need to scrap the whole farce.
I don't really see why you would be against it, care to explain? Why is it not even fractionally better to have a proper constitution? Why is that not something worth having?

[InsaneApache]

There was nothing wrong with our 'unwritten' constitution until Labour started arsing around with it. Fiddling about with tried and trusted institutions that have stood the test of time. It wasn't broken in the first place. There was nothing to fix. Then again, they do have an agenda.

A written constitution is fine and dandy but can you imagine the likes of Brown, Cameron and Clegg coming up with anything as eloquent as the US Declartion of Independence? No, we'd be more likely to get something along the lines of the EU Contitution Lisbon Treaty. Impenetrable legalese that is open to mis-interpratation, obfuscation and abuse.

I must be getting old. :shame:

[Furunculus]

There was nothing wrong with our 'unwritten' constitution until Labour started arsing around with it. Fiddling about with tried and trusted institutions that have stood the test of time. It wasn't broken in the first place. There was nothing to fix. Then again, they do have an agenda.

A written constitution is fine and dandy but can you imagine the likes of Brown, Cameron and Clegg coming up with anything as eloquent as the US Declartion of Independence? No, we'd be more likely to get something along the lines of the EU Contitution Lisbon Treaty. Impenetrable legalese that is open to mis-interpratation, obfuscation and abuse.

I must be getting old. :shame:

you are absolutely correct.

however the reality is that our finely balanced unwritten constitution has been buggered about with by Labour to the point where it is becoming unworkable, because all those 'harmless' little tinkering ammendments necessary to 'modernise' our constitutional structure were done with no thought to how they impacted other areas of governance which have accumulated from 1000 years of Common Law.

[Incongruous]

There was nothing wrong with our 'unwritten' constitution until Labour started arsing around with it. Fiddling about with tried and trusted institutions that have stood the test of time. It wasn't broken in the first place. There was nothing to fix. Then again, they do have an agenda.

A written constitution is fine and dandy but can you imagine the likes of Brown, Cameron and Clegg coming up with anything as eloquent as the US Declartion of Independence? No, we'd be more likely to get something along the lines of the EU Contitution Lisbon Treaty. Impenetrable legalese that is open to mis-interpratation, obfuscation and abuse.

I must be getting old. :shame:


There is something very wrong with our constitution and there has been for a very long time, Labour has simply painted it red. Therefore the time has come where a proper constitution is the only way out of this mess, or drastic steps must be taken to curtail the powers of Parliament, but then what steps into the space left by that?
In any case, I would like to be able to read up my basic rights in a nice concise form which could be found on the BBC's website...

We could simply get Stephen Fry to write it for us.

[rory_20_uk]

you are absolutely correct.

however the reality is that our finely balanced unwritten constitution has been buggered about with by Labour to the point where it is becoming unworkable, because all those 'harmless' little tinkering ammendments necessary to 'modernise' our constitutional structure were done with no thought to how they impacted other areas of governance which have accumulated from 1000 years of Common Law.

Yes, this is true. But getting even the most bloody minded, independent legal minds to come up with a written constitution will only last a decade at the most before it too is amended or reinterpreted to death. And even if there is one drafted unless the monarch takes it into his / her own hands to force it through do you really think Parliment is going to pass something that would take away their power?

I am pro monarch in principle, but currently the monarch is too much a figurehead. It used to be that the opposition would, well, oppose the government. Sadly there are too many issues that suit all sides too well. The Monarch should be able to provide as independant base to review Parlimentary powers - just as Parliment was supposed to review the Monarch's powers, but are now unopposed.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

I never thought I ever say this but Jackie Ashleys (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/06/mp-expenses-daniel-hannan-conservatives) column in the Gruniad today is spot on. (More or less) The publication of the receipts will be a political Hiroshima.

I've said before on these boards but I think it's worth repeating.

Forget political allegiances. Forget tribalism. The only way that we are going to sort these bastards out is to vote them out. All of them. Whoever you vote for, make sure it's not the emcumbent. Vote for anyone but the sitting MP. It'd take them a year to sort themselves out, therefore leaving us alone as a bonus.

You know it makes sense. :wink:

[rory_20_uk]

Too few seem to care. Too few will even bother to look. It only confirms what most suspect anyway. And I thought that MPs have unilaterally decided that they can edit the receipts in any case...

~:smoking:

[Incongruous]

"the mob is assembling", while alot of that article was rather good, this last part was far too dramtic and little too dismissive of the greater issues when talking of the constitution. In fact the article did not dare mention the constitution. I expect that if papers like the Guardian printed more words about the vast breaches made in the constitution by Parliament/ the Government we would see far more anger and real clamour for reform.

"vote 'em out" is a poor answer to the shouted question, what do we do? More likely is, toss 'em out and lock the bloody door.

[InsaneApache]

I hope Martin Bell stands on an anti-corruption platform again. He's got it spot on with his article...


To the armed services Geoff Hoon was a uniquely unpopular defence secretary. They still speak ill of him on their websites. It wasn't just that he led them into a disastrous, costly and probably illegal war. They disliked him anyway. They never felt that he had their welfare at heart.

Now it appears that all this time he was drawing his allowance for a second home while living at the taxpayers' expense in a grace and favour residence. It was all within the rules, of course. It always is. And others are still doing it. The rules themselves are as much a source of scandal as the conduct of those who shelter behind them.

With every day that passes the case grows stronger for an independent review of members' expenses and a root and branch reform of them. It is in no one's interest, especially theirs, that they should continue to be held in such disrepute.

That is why the Committee on Standards in Public Life has brought forward its inquiry. And that is also why its chairman, Sir Christopher Kelly, has taken the unprecedented step of asking the parties' three representatives to step aside. They have demurred, of course. But he is surely right. They cannot be judge and jury in their own case. They can and will be invited to give evidence.

The scandals keep coming; and the small ones do as much damage as the big ones. It is the use of public money to buy the little things of life – a bath plug here, a barbecue there – that fuels the public anger. We may not understand quantitative easing. But we know a scam when we see one.

The record shows that parliament is incapable of regulating itself. It chooses its own commissioner for standards. If the commissioner shows too much zeal it finds another. Some of the members of its Committee on Standards and Privileges have failed to park their politics at the door. Indeed, they have been stooges of the whips. I have seen this for myself. The House has resisted necessary reforms, until we find ourselves at the present crisis of confidence.

Annie's Bar may no longer be with us, but the Last Chance Saloon is open for a few more months. The Committee on Standards will report before Christmas. But what if its recommendations are rejected, as they have been so often in the past? Then there is no point having it. Its chairman will probably resign and be right to do so. And when election day dawns, the House of Commons itself will be the issue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/06/mps-expenses-geoff-hoon

Professional politicians are to blame in my book. Never had a job outside the student uni, poltical researcher, SPAD. Never had to run a business/department on a budget. No experience, no clue, no morals or principles, just lobby fodder.

Say what you will about Wedgie, Powell, Thatcher and the rest of the old timers but they did have experiences outside of politics. Oh, they had integrity too.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Wedgie, Powell, Thatcher

they had integrity
The US Justice Department is seeking to question Baroness Thatcher as part of a high-level inquiry into allegations of a "flights-for-favours" corruption scandal at Congress.

Officials have asked the Metropolitan Police to question the former Tory Prime Minister over a meeting she held with leading Republican Tom DeLay in the UK in 2000.

The request, revealed in a leaked Home Office document, forms part of a probe into allegations that congressmen received free foreign holidays from lobby groups in return for influencing legislation.Linky (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article574150.ece)


Me, I think the UK parliament is less corrupt than ever. There is just less tolerance for it. Society has changed faster than parliament has in this respect.

One hundred years ago, there wasn't even much of a difference in the first place between parliamentary work, and taking care of your own. Powerful lobby groups didn't have to bribe MPs, they were the MPs. And as such, they didn't have to exploit the system for personal gain, instead, the caretaking of their own interests was the system.



Talk of constitution, of equality before the law for everybody, anger over self-interested ruling classes, angry mobs gathering - will we see Britain belatedly join the party, two centuries late? :beam:

[InsaneApache]

Talk of constitution, of equality before the law for everybody, anger over self-interested ruling classes, angry mobs gathering - will we see Britain belatedly join the party, two centuries late?

I think we started about five hundred years before that. :birthday2:

Didn't know that the Yanks wanted Hilda, now I understand why Blair signed that disgraceful extradition treaty with them. :laugh4:

[Husar]

Yeah, worked really well in America... ~:joker:

~:smoking:

America has a constitution, but not a proper constitution.

[InsaneApache]

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has defended her use of MPs' allowances as "fair and reasonable".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7987102.stm

They just don't get it, do they?

[rory_20_uk]

Oh they get far too much of it.

The problem with MPs verses say the Royal family is that the royals know that they are safe in what they do. MPs are all aware that if could all be over in only 5 years - so grab as much as possible and keep options open for a soft landing in cushy jobs / lectures.

It also is to do with why people go into politics. When Churchill left office for example, he was all but bankrupt - friends had to lend him money. Dear Tony Blair not only ensured that his pension from leaving is greater than most for a whole career, but due to keeping fingers on the pulse he is the world's best paid speaker.

~:smoking:

[LittleGrizzly]

I think half the problem is that the kind of people who make thier way into the top jobs with thier talents in the private sector they could have made much more money...

I once heard that Tony Blair was actually the least successful (financially at least) out of his friends... i don't know if thats still true or if it was ever true for sure.. but i wouldn't doubt that alot of his friends made more money in the private sector...

So these people perhaps feel they deserve more...

[InsaneApache]

I think half the problem is that the kind of people who make thier way into the top jobs with thier talents in the private sector they could have made much more money...

What do you premise that on? Micheal White, Toynbee and Ashley? How many businesses have you run. Come to that, how many businesses have McRuin, Darling, Balls, and the rest of the goons run?

I know, would you like to guess.

They wouldn't last a fortnight in the private setor. Could'nt run a bath between 'em.

[Furunculus]

having been a director of a business valued by grant thorntons at £1.7m i would tend to agree, and my business sunk! :laugh4:

[LittleGrizzly]

For one aren't Blair and Cameron eton graduates ?

don't get me wrong i haven't got a clue what in or how well they did in said degrees but i would bet even if they were the most incompetent men alive with a degree from eton behind you and loads of connections through rich friends you could end up earning yourself a hell of a lot of money... more than you can as a politician...

[InsaneApache]

What's having a degree from Eton, or any other place come to that, got to do with business acumen?

[rory_20_uk]

For one aren't Blair and Cameron eton graduates ?

don't get me wrong i haven't got a clue what in or how well they did in said degrees but i would bet even if they were the most incompetent men alive with a degree from eton behind you and loads of connections through rich friends you could end up earning yourself a hell of a lot of money... more than you can as a politician...

Fine, so go and do it.

Most doctors could earn far more doing other things. Go back a decade and the juniors were doing 100 hour weeks with little senior support. They'd've viewed investment banking as a holiday.

~:smoking:

[Incongruous]

What's having a degree from Eton, or any other place come to that, got to do with business acumen?

The green leather, its all to do with the natural love of green leather, if you decorate a finacial institution in green leather (as they teach at Eton) no one will ever notice that damp plaster.
Just begin smiling and talking about "historical importance" and "broken society".

[InsaneApache]

Crikey I've heard it all now. :wall:

Sinn Fein has hit back at Conservative claims it is "completely unacceptable" for their five MPs to claim expenses on two London flats.

It emerged last week that Sinn Fein MPs, who do not take their seats at Westminster, have claimed more than £400,000 in allowances.

The party says it has not broken any rules and its MPs use the flats.

Sinn Fein MPs do not take a salary but have been entitled to allowances since a Commons vote in 2001.

The move was not part of the Good Friday agreement, but the then foreign secretary Robin Cook said: "We are more likely to secure further decommissioning if we demonstrate that we are willing to maintain the momentum on our side."

In the last financial year, Sinn Fein's five MPs Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Pat Doherty, Michelle Gildernew, and Conor Murphy each claimed £21,000 in Additional Cost Allowances - just short of the maximum.

NI MPs' expenses in detail


Since the figures were first published in 2001/02, the Sinn Fein MPs, who do not take their seats at Westminster as that would involve swearing allegiance to the Queen, have received a total of £437,405 in the taxpayer funded allowance.

A Sinn Fein spokesman said: "Sinn Fein MPs do not receive a salary from Westminster, nor do they employ any family members. Sinn Fein makes no apology for refusing to sit in the British House of Commons.

"We also make no apology for ensuring that people who vote for Sinn Fein get the same democratic entitlements as everyone else."



Martin McGuinness has rejected criticism of his party's stance on expenses

But the payments were strongly condemned by senior Conservatives.

Shadow Northern Ireland secretary Owen Paterson told The Daily Mail: "It is completely unacceptable for Sinn Fein representatives, who won't even sit in Parliament, to claim hundreds of thousands at the taxpayers' expense.

"That is why the Conservatives have consistently opposed members who refuse to take their seats receiving the accommodation allowance."

Figures released last week show North Belfast MP Nigel Dodds had the 13th highest expenses bill, claiming a total of £171,609 towards travel, staffing and office running costs.

His DUP colleague, Lagan Valley MP Jeffrey Donaldson spent £161,095, with the South Antrim MP Willie McCrea spending £159,852.

David Simpson, the DUP MP for Upper Bann, spent £158,903 with his party colleague Sammy Wilson the MP for East Antrim spending £156,932.

The office, travel and staffing costs of Ian Paisley, the North Antrim MP, totalled £139,565.

SDLP MPs Eddie McGrady and Alasdair McDonnell both accrued expenses of £156,000.

Extra trips

Their party leader, Mark Durkan the Foyle MP spent, £149,364 and his constituency neighbour Gregory Campbell of the DUP spent a total of £136, 213.

The Ulster Unionists sole Westminster representative Lady Sylvia Hermon spent £134,004.

The lowest spenders amongst Northern Ireland MPs were Peter and Iris Robinson. The MP for East Belfast spent £128,000 and his wife, the MP for Strangford, accrued travel staffing and office costs of £125,000.

A DUP spokesman said Mr Dodds regularly attended Westminster and as a result his expenses would be higher than others.

The spokesman added that during this time the North Belfast MP was also the party's chief whip at Westminster which meant he had to make extra trips to London.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life will start a review into MPs' allowances as soon as possible amid public anger at the amount claimed by MPs and ministers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7989281.stm

[tibilicus]

Crikey I've heard it all now. :wall:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7989281.stm

I love Sinn Fein.

They hate us Brits so much yet are happy to take our pay outs...

I think it's about them we stopped pouring money into the pockets if these "joke" MP's and quite frankly strip them of all expenses if they can't even be bothered to sit in parliament.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It takes an Irishman to do corruption properly. Your lot are rank amateurs compared to the festering swamp that is Bertie Ahern, let alone Charlie Haughey.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For one aren't Blair and Cameron eton graduates ?

don't get me wrong i haven't got a clue what in or how well they did in said degrees but i would bet even if they were the most incompetent men alive with a degree from eton behind you and loads of connections through rich friends you could end up earning yourself a hell of a lot of money... more than you can as a politician...

As none of the other Brits, or Irishmen, have been charitable enough to correct you I suppose I should.

Eton is a School, Oxford is a University. Eton teaches you how to eat with a knife and fork, write copperplate and many other essential life sills, then they send you to Oxford for the degree.

Cameron has attended both, I don't believe Blair attended either.

Eton is a matter of money and class, but Oxford indicates a certain amount of intelligence even for Mr Cameron's generation.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Brown has the best taste, attended Glasgow like myself. Wouldn't be surprised if he took the same courses. Maybe I should follow in his footsteps (well to be PM, no economic crisis please)...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Brown has the best taste, attended Glasgow like myself. Wouldn't be surprised if he took the same courses. Maybe I should follow in his footsteps (well to be PM, no economic crisis please)...

Brown was forced to go, wasn't he?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Brown was forced to go, wasn't he?

What do you mean? I don't know a lot about his time there to be honest.

[InsaneApache]

Five years ago I spent several weeks in Zimbabwe reporting on the way that President Mugabe was brutalising his people, in part thanks to the inertia and complicity of the Tony Blair government.

After I returned, Sir Patrick Cormack, a Conservative Party backbencher, invited me to his room. He wanted to ask what questions he should put to a government minister who would soon be giving evidence on Zimbabwe to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, of which he was a member.

So I told Cormack about a strange event that had occurred the previous month. President Mugabe had been invited to Paris by President Chirac for a summit meeting. This example of European approval of a barbarous dictator caused uproar.

When Downing Street was asked about the episode, it gave the impression to reporters that it had neither been consulted nor informed, while ministers spoke out angrily against the invitation.



John Prescott and Tracey Temple: However willing she was during their affair, he held power over her

In fact I was able to show Cormack evidence that the British government had known all along about the invitation, raised not the slightest objection, that its protestations of ignorance were false, and that the angry pronouncements by ministers were no better than a cynical device. I suggested to Cormack that he should expose this wretched business at the Foreign Affairs Committee, and offered to draft him a list of questions.

Sir Patrick gazed around his large and beautifully appointed Commons office. He looked appalled. "Oh, I could never do that," he stated. "It might embarrass the Government."

Since then I have often noted Sir Patrick nod with vigorous approval from the Conservative side as Tony Blair spoke from the dispatch box. I have seen him cross the floor of the House to offer sympathy and support to a government minister in trouble.

I have also been reliably told that he wrote a letter of rebuke to a younger Tory MP in a neighbouring constituency who attacked the Government. "That is not the sort of thing we do in Staffordshire," declared Cormack.

Cormack has his fans who believe that he represents a 'civilised' kind of politics. I cannot agree. Voters put their MPs into Parliament to represent their interests and articulate their concerns, and sometimes anger, not to form part of a comfortable club, or to collude with opposition parties.

Sir Patrick is one of hundreds of Members of Parliament who now belong to a Political Class that has become entrenched at the centre of British politics, government and society.

This new Political Class has emerged over the past three decades to become the dominant force in British public life - and increasingly pursues its own sectional interests oblivious to the public good.

It encompasses lobbyists, party functionaries, advisers and spindoctors, many journalists, and increasing numbers of onceindependent civil servants. All mainstream politicians of the three main parties belong to it. Gordon Brown is a member, so is the Tory leader David Cameron.

Indeed, as the case of Sir Patrick Cormack shows, MPs from different parties now have far more in common with each other, as members of the Political Class, than they have with voters. They seek to protect one another, help each other out, rather than engage in robust democratic debate.

As a result, the House of Commons is no longer really a cockpit where great conflicts of vision are fought out across the chamber. It has converted instead into a professional group, like the Bar Council or the British Medical Association.

This means that the most important division in Britain is no longer the Tory versus Labour dividing line that marked out the battle zone in politics for the bulk of the 20th century. The real division is between a narrow, self-serving and - as we will see - increasingly corrupt Political Class and the mass of ordinary voters.

Just as it was impossible to understand how Britain worked 50 years ago without grasping the significance of the old Establishment, today it is impossible to grasp how power operates without understanding the nature of this Political Class.

Its most noticeable characteristic is a chronic lack of experience of and connection with the world outside politics. Its members make government their exclusive study and tend to have no significant experience of industry, commerce, or civil society.

The former Tory Cabinet minister Michael Portillo - a pioneering member of the Political Class - lasted a very short time working for a shipping company where he developed a "deep distaste for his clerical and administrative duties".



Michael Portillo (left) had a deep distaste for clerical duties, while Boris Johnson could not work as a management consultant and stay awake

The Conservative MP Boris Johnson worked as a management consultant after leaving university. "Try as I might," he later stated, "I could not look at an overhead projection of a growth/profit matrix, and stay conscious."

The only Cabinet minister in Tony Blair's 1997 administration with any experience of work in the commercial sector was the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, who had been a ship's steward in the 1950s.

He was joined in the Cabinet in due course by Alan Milburn, whose commercial experience was limited to a short period running Days Of Hope, a Marxist bookshop known to its patrons by the spoonerism Haze Of Dope. Milburn was nevertheless handed the task of running the National Health Service, the largest employer in the world outside Indian Railways and the Red Army.

When Milburn left the Government he was succeeded as Health Secretary by John Reid, whose private-sector experience was confined to a brief spell in the insurance industry during the 1970s. Not one of the Gordon Brown Cabinet formed in June 2007 had any serious private sector experience.

The culture of incompetence which has become a special hallmark of modern British government is the direct result of the absence of any meaningful managerial experience among the Political Class. Very serious decisions are made with a lack of elementary preparation or understanding on a scale which would be completely shocking in the private sector.

Recent examples include catastrophic IT systems breakdowns in Whitehall departments; the failure to prepare for the post-war situation in Iraq (an act of gross negligence of historical magnitude); the nationalisation of Railtrack; the mismanagement of NHS reforms; the Millennium Dome; the collapse of the Home Office as a functional organisation in 2006; the shambles over Home Information Packs; and the handling of the 2001 Foot and Mouth crisis.



Alan Milburn (left) ran a Marxist bookshop, while John Reid was a ship's steward

But it is on moral standards in public life, rather than mere practical competence, that the closed world of the Political Class has had its most malign effect.

The Political Class is metropolitan and London-based. Its members perceive life through the eyes of a member of London's affluent middle classes. This converts them into a separate, privileged elite, isolated from the aspirations and the problems of provincial, rural and suburban Britain.

This means, in turn, that the Political Class has come to embrace a separate set of values. Its members tend to assert that they perform an almost priestly function and that especially rigorous and exacting ethical standards apply to them. Take this pronouncement by the former Downing Street aide Geoff Mulgan:

"We expect leaders to abide by far more demanding rules than the rest of us. So, for example, we expect them to suspend personal considerations when exercising impersonal power: not to give special favours; not to treat people well just because they like them. We don't let them use their power to enrich themselves, or gain sexual favours."

This is a fascinating passage, gaining special weight because Mulgan was head of policy inside Downing Street when he wrote it.

The particular interest lies not in the series of assertions that Mulgan is making about politicians, but in the assumption he is making about wider society. He is not just saying that voters are making extraordinary demands on politicians when they insist that they do not show favouritism to friends or use their power in order to obtain sexual favours.

He is also assuming that ordinary people - as Mulgan puts it, "the rest of us" - do indeed behave in exactly the corrupt manner he describes.

This attitude amounts to a misunderstanding of normal, civilised conduct. The casual assertions made by Mulgan about ordinary people are false and insulting: they are nevertheless a symptom of the estrangement of the Political Class from civil society.

It is emphatically not acceptable in everyday life to abuse power to enrich yourself or obtain sexual favours.

To give two examples, it is a sackable offence for a company buyer to augment his salary by setting up sidedeals for private benefit, or for the personnel director of a large company to use the status his position gives him to find a job for a friend or relation.

It would probably be against the law as well. It would certainly be against the law if he abused his power to pressure potential employees into consenting to sex.

Any civil servant, member of the armed forces or employee of a private-sector company would be severely disciplined or worse for engaging in the kind of behaviour which Geoff Mulgan claims to regard as normal.

The reality is exactly the other way around. Members of the Political Class have exceptionally poor standards in comparison with ordinary people. They constantly conduct themselves in a way that would be unacceptable in any mainstream organisation, whether in the private sector or in a public body.

A very telling example of this disparity of standards is the affair between the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and his secretary Tracey Temple, which became public knowledge in April 2006.

Prescott would have been sacked on account of his conduct had he worked in practically any other walk of life, as the following account, written by the City journalist Chris Blackhurst at the height of the storm over Tracey Temple, suggests: "At a dinner party I was forcibly struck by the anger in the business community about John Prescott. Around the table were the chairman of one of our largest retailers, the chairman of a pubs group, the spokesman for a major broadcaster, and one of Prescott's Cabinet colleagues.

"The latter said little about Prescott, although her view was obvious. She was forced to listen as one by one the other guests said that if anyone had behaved like that in their organisations - a man having an affair with a woman who directly worked for him, and having sex in the office - they would be instantly dismissed. No question.

"The retailer was able to recall cases where shop managers had been found out and fired. The pub company boss said the same of his staff. But they didn't just say the stricture applied to juniors - if anyone at the top, including themselves, was doing what Prescott did, they would be out.

"It was the fact that Tracey Temple answered to Prescott that riled them - that, no matter how willing she was, he held power over her.

"He could, if she'd refused, have made her life a misery; had her moved, blocked her promotion. It would be her word against his and he was John Prescott."

The remarks cited in this commentary capture exquisitely the disconnection between members of the Political Class and civil society. John Prescott's conduct was not merely in flagrant contravention of norms in the private sector. In early 2006, just weeks before his transgression came to light, two policemen were convicted for the offence of having sex with members of the public while on duty.

This precedent led Alistair Watson, a retired Glasgow police officer, to make a formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police, calling for an investigation into Prescott's conduct.

Watson insisted that his motives were not malicious: "If there are rules that apply to ordinary people, John Prescott should be treated the same, or more harshly."

His behaviour even flouted the rules for civil servants in his own department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Shortly after news of the affair broke, a newspaper reported Tracey Temple's disclosure that she and the Deputy Prime Minister repeatedly had sex behind the open door to his office while his staff worked outside.

Yet the 1,000-page guidebook for civil servants in Prescott's department instructed officials not to make "improper use" of accommodation, furniture and workspace, especially during "official time".

When these rules were drawn to John Prescott's attention, his spokesman replied that the Deputy Prime Minister had not breached the rule book.

He said: "The guide applies to civil servants, not ministers."

Here Prescott's spokesman was explicitly articulating the ethic of the Political Class, which tolerates one set of standards for politicians and a second, significantly higher standard for those who work for them. This approach was endorsed by the Prime Minister's spokesman in 10 Downing Street, where Tony Blair gave Prescott his "full support".

This kind of disregard for ordinary rules of conduct or decency is duplicated again and again. David Blunkett, a successful Cabinet minister for the first eight years of the Blair government, was a multiple transgressor who displayed a fundamental inability to understand the distinction between the public and the private domain.

His infractions occurred in a number of spheres, most famously in the case of his lover Kimberly Quinn. While Home Secretary he provided Mrs Quinn with first-class rail tickets, intended for MPs' spouses, even though she was actually married to somebody else.

He made his official car available to Mrs Quinn for trips between London and his house in Derbyshire. When his affair with Mrs Quinn reached its crisis point, two Home Office officials - John Toker, head of news, and Blunkett's private secretary Jonathan Sedgwick - attended a private meeting with her lawyers.

This episode appeared to take the two civil servants beyond their proper public role, and deep into the private domain.

Defenders of Blunkett maintained that the episodes with the rail tickets and the official car were trivial. However, if either offence had been carried out by an army officer it would have led to serious disciplinary action, potentially even court martial and dismissal.

As with the case of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary was showing contempt for rules that were actually deadly serious for others.

The greatest culprits of all have been Tony and Cherie Blair. In September 2006 Mr Blair smashed the tight guidelines concerning leaks of sensitive economic data while making a speech to the Trades Union Congress, telling them that "tomorrow we will see a fall in unemployment, which is very welcome indeed".

It was easy to see why Mr Blair issued the information. He was expecting a hostile reception from union delegates and it was politically very helpful indeed to deliver some cheerful economic news.



Tony and Cherie Blair: One rule for the powerful, another for everyone else

Yet had an official inside the Office of National Statistics committed a similar indiscretion he would probably have been sacked. This is because the information was highly sensitive.

Sterling rose at once on the Prime Minister's speech because the solid economic news was seen as boosting the chances of an interest rate rise. But there was no apology from Downing Street and a No 10 spokesman brushed off the episode, saying that it was not a major breach.

The case of Cherie Blair provides a grotesque illustration of the attitudes and practices of the new Political Class. The Prime Minister's wife manifested a new morality in the heart of government, namely that it was acceptable to use the highest office as a method of personal enrichment.

Previous spouses at No 10 had been relatively modest and unobtrusive, and had never sought to exploit their position financially.

In the 1960s, officials warned Mary, wife of Harold Wilson and a talented poet, on no account to accept the sum of £33 for some verses she had published in a magazine.

They informed her that doing so could be seen as trading on her husband's position as Prime Minister. Mary Wilson complied without complaint. Mrs Blair could not have been more different. She placed herself on the books of the Harry Walker Agency, the New York-based company which represents clients as senior as Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger.

Though she formally marketed herself as Cherie Booth, her maiden name, Harry Walker nevertheless left no one in any doubt about her connection with Tony Blair. This connection proved profitable.

In February 2006, for example, she reportedly earned some £150,000 on a tour of the United States which involved at least five speaking engagements. The previous year she is thought to have earned at least £140,000 for eight days' work.

In June 2005 she was paid some £30,000 to be interviewed before an audience by the CNN anchorwoman Paula Zahn, while Tony Blair was on an official visit to the White House. Sir David Manning, British ambassador to Washington and seemingly willing to stretch any point well beyond the cause of duty as far as Tony and Cherie Blair were concerned, made a warm-up speech.

When questioned over the trip, Downing Street insisted that it was "normal procedure" for the British ambassador to accompany or to introduce "any prominent British citizen visiting Washington".

Mrs Blair's behaviour on this occasion nevertheless stretched the tolerance of the Prime Minister's civil service advisers past breaking point. She was strongly advised in advance not to take up this engagement by Cabinet Secretary Andrew Turnbull.

Turnbull urged her not to embark on the undertaking at all, adding that, if she did insist on going ahead, she should donate her fee to charity. Cherie ignored this advice, saying: "Maybe we should not have done this, but we are in too deep."

Mrs Blair's speaking tour of Australia at the start of 2005 was another notable infraction. She agreed to make a series of speeches, one to raise funds for the Children's Cancer Institute Australia, a research charity.

Rather than do the work free - as would have been expected of a Prime Minister's wife - Cherie Blair shockingly agreed to accept money.

According to the publicity literature, a VIP table for ten to include "pre-dinner cocktails" and a "photo opportunity" cost £4,100.

According to the provisional schedule of expenses agreed for the tour, Cherie Blair was to receive the prodigious sum of £102,600 for the tour, while the charity was booked to receive a 'minimum' fee of £99,900. Whether it did remains open to question.

It later emerged that the function breached local fundraising laws. An investigation carried out by Consumer Affairs Victoria, a state agency, found the vast bulk of the earnings of the event went on the dinner itself and the guest speaker. Mrs Blair's fee is estimated to have been significantly larger than the sum raised for charity.

The second way that Cherie Blair used her position in Downing Street to leverage personal financial advantage was the extraction of discounts and even giveaways from retailers. She was flagrant about this.

One Christmas she rang Greg Dyke, in his capacity as a board director of Manchester United FC, to ask him if he could arrange a discount on a club shirt for her son Euan. On overseas trips she was yet more demanding.

In Melbourne in 2003 Mrs Blair and her children visited the designer store Globe International, where as a courtesy she was invited to help herself to a "few items" as a gesture of "hospitality to the wife of the second most powerful man in the world".

She responded by helping herself to 60 pieces or more. According to one witness: "It was an invitation to pick out a few items and they walked out with 70."

Downing Street later stated that Mrs Blair had repaid in full the £2,000 value of the goods taken.

According to staff at Tongs Jewellers, in Beijing's Pearl Market, the Prime Minister's wife achieved discounts of 50 per cent or more on her jewel purchases. The staff said that while ordinary customers might achieve a 10 or 20 per cent discount, "for her we do 50 per cent".

They said that she had paid some 5,000 yuan, or around £335, for a three-string necklace but that "normally the price is 5,000 yuan for one string".

During these bargain-hunting trips in China, Mrs Blair used British diplomats as her 'personal shoppers'. Consulate staff visited a Shanghai silk shop, and ordered made-to-measure dresses on behalf of Mrs Blair.

This aggressive pursuit of goods from shops and designers fitted into a pattern of behaviour also manifest in the Blairs' predatory search for holiday villas, where they were not expected to pay the bill, or at any rate not much of it.

Only last week Samantha Cameron, wife of the Tory leader, laid herself open to similar charges when she used a magazine interview to promote goods sold by the company she works for.

What we are seeing here is a special aspect of Political Class behaviour: a catastrophic confusion of private interest and public role. Cherie Blair is a frightening illustration of the rise of a kind of predatory individualism which uses public life as a method of self-enrichment.

By the end of her stay in Downing Street, Mrs Blair had become a leading member of what was in effect a British version of the old Soviet nomenklatura, a member of a privileged elite who did not have to adhere to the rules and norms set down for the bulk of the population.

This estrangement is very perilous for British democracy. It is the reason for the collapse in trust in the British political process, and the sharply falling turn-out at general elections.

Instead of serving the people, the new Political Class looks after its own interests.

• The Triumph Of The Political Class by Peter Oborne (Simon and Schuster, £18.99) is due to be published on September 17. To order a copy for £17, P&P inc, telephone

Yup, it works for me.