Reducing corruption

So, the 'Is the UK parliament corrupt' topic brought to light a general feeling of 'is there any legislative body that ISN'T corrupt?' and lots of thoughts and general resentment in regards to the attitude of people towards those bodies.

I feel this deserves its own topic, which doesn't have the specific context of the UK, in order to allow a bit more of a freeform discussion of other countries systems as well.

Now, the basic ideas I've seen proposed are something like this, I may have forgotten a few (And, of course, these are within the context of the US political system, feel free to throw in your own or mentally edit the options to make them appropriate to your political system of choice) :

Term limits.
Limiting campaign contributions.
Elimination of money/gifts/whatever in lobbying.
Elimination of 'superparties' (IE: Establish a multi-party system).
Elimination of 'special interest groups' 'political action committees', etc. etc.
Shipping all the politicians to the middle of the Amazon and filming 'Survivor: Congress'.

I believe that covers the basics, although there are no doubt infinite less-widely-held options.

So, what does the backroom think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Shipping all the politicians to the middle of the Amazon and filming 'Survivor: Congress'.

---

:yes:

agreed: if theres one thing that needs to be changed in congress is that congressmen need term limits.
:yes:

Its quite funny all the anger directed at corrupt politicians... its run through all professions that can get away with it...

After the big scandal about Jacqui Smith's husband putting pay per view porn down on her MP expenses they had a segment on talk sport radio about regular people fiddling the expenses... people had put down strippers and all other kiinds of things (though they put them down as something else)

Corruption is a natural result of people in a position where they can get away with it... it is not only politicians and it is something we can never fully remove...

Just have things in place like some of those mentioned in the OP that make it more difficult to get away with it..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Its quite funny all the anger directed at corrupt politicians... its run through all professions that can get away with it...

After the big scandal about Jacqui Smith's husband putting pay per view porn down on her MP expenses they had a segment on talk sport radio about regular people fiddling the expenses... people had put down strippers and all other kiinds of things (though they put them down as something else)

Corruption is a natural result of people in a position where they can get away with it... it is not only politicians and it is something we can never fully remove...

Just have things in place like some of those mentioned in the OP that make it more difficult to get away with it..

---

I think the problem these days isn't so much the corruption, which has always been there, but that two critical points have been reached:

1. It's hardly even covered up anymore. The only time it gets reported is in cases like the Blagoyavich (sp?) thing, where everybody acts suitably outraged and the person in question quietly retires.

2. In the US, at least, it's gotten to the point where nobody can actually do anything because of it. I mean, the most significant thing Congress has done is throw money at people and legislate the possession of chimps.
Our government has turned into a swarm of flies trying to get at a jar of honey, and now they've sunk to the point where they can't extricate themselves, so they're just going to eat as much as they can.

A third, lesser, point is that so much of our government is run by people who are so old and set in their ways that they have almost zero connection to modern society.

Look up 'series of tubes' on Youtube and you'll see what I mean.

Drastically bring down the amount of government, the less filthy fingers in the cookie-drum the better.

Or bring down the government.

oh crap black van

knee cap the buggers as they leave Parliament/Senate/Assembly, it is called pre-emptive action and Bush reckons it to be legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Elimination of 'superparties' (IE: Establish a multi-party system).

---

i like the UK's two-and-a-half party system, as i dislike coalition politics.

two main parties to occupy the ideological extremes, and third ready to supplant an incumbant if the incumbant drifts too far from public expectations.

a healthy system IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i like the UK's two-and-a-half party system...two main parties to occupy the ideological extremes, and third ready to supplant an incumbant if the incumbant drifts too far from public expectations.

---

I'm sorry, which UK is this? I don't think "ideological" or "extremes" are actually legally words mentionable within the Houses of Parliament, expect a stint in the wilderness if you do.

The "two" party system is a joke, no one really likes any of the parties, most wish the Lib Dems would get more votes because then they would vote for them, instead they usually vote against whovere got in last time. Intellectual engagement in elections is a fairly unhealthy thing in the UK, you would probabaly break down crying at the stupidity of it all.

you must remember young grasshopper that the ideological divide has usually been much greater than the previous 12 years, which are a direct result of blairs third way.

and ideologies do come and go, which is why having a thrusting minor party waiting in the wings keenly sniffing the breeze for the new trend is a healthy thing.

the reason why the lib-dems get nowhere at present is because there is no new trend for them to adopt, but that will change given time.

The lib dems remain pro EU. Sadly any party that takes this stance is immediately written off as who cares what other policies they have or how honest they are since they are gunning to give power to a massive group of pretty much unaccountable politicians who are far more corrupt than Westminster has ever been.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

you must remember young grasshopper that the ideological divide has usually been much greater than the previous 12 years, which are a direct result of blairs third way.

and ideologies do come and go, which is why having a thrusting minor party waiting in the wings keenly sniffing the breeze for the new trend is a healthy thing.

the reason why the lib-dems get nowhere at present is because there is no new trend for them to adopt, but that will change given time.

---

Isn't that all in the past now though?

your point being.........................?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

Term limits. No.
Limiting campaign contributions. Only from corporations or companies.
Elimination of money/gifts/whatever in lobbying. Yes.
Elimination of 'superparties' (IE: Establish a multi-party system). No. I want no parties whatsoever.
Elimination of 'special interest groups' 'political action committees', etc. etc. If this means a ban on all lobbyists, then yes.
Shipping all the politicians to the middle of the Amazon and filming 'Survivor: Congress'. Absolutely.

I believe that covers the basics, although there are no doubt infinite less-widely-held options.

So, what does the backroom think?

---

There.

As a Doctor I need to be registered to practice. This means I have to follow a code which denotes behaviour and ethics. Any perceived breach I can be suspended or loose registration.
I am accountable for all actions or inactions.
Any gift over £100 has to be registered.
Any gift from a "lobbyist" has to have an actual or perceived value less than £6.

So, something similar to this would be a start.
When entering parliament you have to pass a CRB.
You are then registered for your time in parliament, and are bound by the code of practice.
This is monitored by an independent board. Stack it with doctors, nurses and teachers if you want to ensure the "right" mindset.

There has to be some reason to follow it.
So, loosing your registration means a lifetime ban from all directorships within the UK.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i like the UK's two-and-a-half party system, as i dislike coalition politics.

---

I agree. I was debating with someone the other day about weather we should scrap the FPTP voting system and my main argument against it being scrapped was it provides us with a clear winner and a clear government. Sure, it's probably not completely fair, but when you compare it to other countries which use proportional systems it's no more unfair. Forming a coalition is simply forming a government which generally wont get along and isn't necessary chosen by the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

There.

---

What about no union donations?

Wouldn't a union fall under the title of special interest group.

Does anyone think that term limits are going to actually make a difference? It makes no difference if we cycle through corrupt legislators or if just keep the same ones. Besides we already have a term limit system put in place, it's called voting.

Why limit contributions? Such limits only encourage evasion. Taking money out of politics is akin to a prohibition on drugs -- nice intentions but...

I'd settle for an ironclad disclosure rule. If the MP in question is a wholly-owned subsidiary of some Liverpudlian shipping magnate, you ought to know about it. Still might vote for her even so, but at least you'd know. Here, if they're enslaved by the NRA, I'd like to know. Let's me decide if I care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Why limit contributions? Such limits only encourage evasion. Taking money out of politics is akin to a prohibition on drugs -- nice intentions but...

I'd settle for an ironclad disclosure rule. If the MP in question is a wholly-owned subsidiary of some Liverpudlian shipping magnate, you ought to know about it. Still might vote for her even so, but at least you'd know. Here, if they're enslaved by the NRA, I'd like to know. Let's me decide if I care.

---

I understand your point, and it's a valid one, save for the lack of options. If Candidate A is enslaved by the NRA, and Candidate B is enslaved by a Union, and I'm not a fan of vested interests, who do I vote for? There may well be a Candidate C, getting by on individual donations, but chances are I've never heard of them or their policies because they can't afford the exposure. I end up going with a heavy heart to the least bad option and spend the next few years watching them shovel money and favours to their mates.

I'd keep the ironclad disclosure rule, and add a maximum contribution from any source to $10 (or equivalent). If all the members of the NRA (as an example) wish individually to contribute their ten bucks because of the quality for the candidate, fair enough.

Getting politicians to cut donations... Right up there with getting meth addicts to start afresh.

$10 a head would then become such tactics as every union member donates £5, as agreed at the AGM and the union handles the transfer; no donation by industry, but they choose to run pseudo-independant advertisements in a synergistic way. or place assets at the party's disposal rather than funds.

I'm for the "full disclosure" option. The internet is pervasive and if you're unhappy with options 1 and 2 there are ways the 3rd candidate can get his message out - perhaps not to the extent as Obama, but using the same methods.

~:smoking: