Is the UK Parliament corrupt?

Do I need a link? :inquisitive:

Is it?

:laugh4:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Is it?

---

Watch Yes, Minister ever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Watch Yes, Minister ever?

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Xv...om=PL&index=15

You'll love this from 25 years ago.

Quote:

---

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?

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

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?).

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:

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.

You are talking about the corruption perception index or CPI



: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

that sums up my view nicely.

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Xv...om=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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

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:

it has worked very well for america.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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:

I never thought I ever say this but Jackie Ashleys 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:

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:

"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.

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

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/commentisf...ses-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Wedgie, Powell, Thatcher

they had integrity

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Times

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


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:

Quote:

---

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: