Is democracy a thin veneer undermined by lobbyists, consultants and other un elected bodies? bodies

Yes it is - and always has been.

Inner circles, special interests always prevail. Read any history of Britain and these people have always been there. Different names in different periods of time, but always present.

It is called 'inner circles'.

So what exactly can we do about it? Nothing really.

It’s actually quite shocking when you think about it, which TerriBull has made us do. I knew of course, but reading the OP, it is quite shocking.

I agree with Monica. There have always been those who exert pressure of some knd or other on the decision-makers, and there always will be, while there is an advantage to be had from power and wealth.

However, it has been rightly said that Democracy is the least bad of political syctems. At least we do have a vote, which gives us a say in who the decision makers are. If we use that vote to choose representatives who are least likely to be corrupted or conned, we have a better chance of getting fair laws for all. Without it the "inner circle" would have free rein to do as they want.

That is why it is so very important to vote for people of honour and integrity, who care about people and who know the law, both the letter of it and the principles behind it, and are prepared to make sure it is observed and that new legislation will be fair.

I don't doubt that it was always thus. I think lobbying can compromise ethics, that has been demonstrated many times and some such lobbyists do not act in the interests of the electorate, well that's hardly a surprise or indeed that they can be pretty unsavoury bodies, as illustrated by Greensill for example, it's just a self serving merry go round. It's hardly any great revelation to find out how unpopular Macron is amongst the working population in France who feel such remote lofty politicians are not there to represent them or fight their corner.

"So what can be done about it? nothing really" I agree, but I think it's a talking point nevertheless, if for no other reason to contemplate how much mass disaffection there is with mainstream parties and people in public life generally, I can see swathes of the electorate swerving to the extremes of the far right or far left because they feel abandoned. Keir Starmer is no doubt going to get a stonking majority, my perception is that will be achieved by default and the ongoing lacklustre performance of the current government, nevertheless there is a different mood imo it is not like the '97 election when Blair swept to power and carried and lot of support for a new dawn of politics with him.

I think the number and influence of professional lobbyists is a bit scary. Attend any party conference and there they are providing free lunches etc.
However one thing I have noticed is the number of candidates standing in my constituency from small parties or completely independant. We have 2 Independents, 1 for the Party of women and one for the Heritage Party . I don't know if any of them will be elected.

Surely it has always been thus? From the days of families courting favour with the King (think Anne Boleyn's family), to the inner circle of just a few families who all go to the same schools, marry within their own group etc. This does not mean that I am happy about it, far from it, but scratch the surface of any family dynasty such as the Norfolks, Howards etc., and they generally achieved what they did by being on the winning side in a battle, marrying off their daughters, or turning a blind eye to their wife being a royal mistress.

I would argue that this situation is worse, if more obvious, in the USA, especially the Republican party with their links to evangelical Christianity and the NRA, neither of which are working to the common good.

The fact that we are discussing this, and are aware of it, and reporters are able, without fear of prosecution or persecution, to write about it, is a good thing.

HousePlantQueen

Surely it has always been thus? From the days of families courting favour with the King (think Anne Boleyn's family), to the inner circle of just a few families who all go to the same schools, marry within their own group etc. This does not mean that I am happy about it, far from it, but scratch the surface of any family dynasty such as the Norfolks, Howards etc., and they generally achieved what they did by being on the winning side in a battle, marrying off their daughters, or turning a blind eye to their wife being a royal mistress.

I would argue that this situation is worse, if more obvious, in the USA, especially the Republican party with their links to evangelical Christianity and the NRA, neither of which are working to the common good.

The fact that we are discussing this, and are aware of it, and reporters are able, without fear of prosecution or persecution, to write about it, is a good thing.

So what you are saying is that things that existed under a feudal system still exist under a democratic system and that is OK.?

I think the lobbying system should be properly regulated and controlled.

As we have seen in the current government from 2019 Grace and Favour contracts and MP's allowed to hold down actual lobbying jobs or paid "directorships" in companies with lobbying interests have been a major issue.

I don't have a problem with someone having had a particular interest in some area of society in the past becoming an MP - unless they continue the links.

The one thing I would take issue with in the O/P is people who have "worked in public affairs". It can be valuable experience, indeed what use are politicians who have never done anything else? Doctors, lawyers, teachers, local govememnt - all relevant experience.

I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility to see seismic shifts in attitudes, rage can fuel changes, that's what brought the Berlin Wall down and I perceive we have a fair amount of rage from some demographics in the democratic west who would like to see more control exercised around the privileged elites lining their pockets. It really isn't good enough to say "it was ever thus" Why should corporations such as large tech companies, Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google get away with paying so little tax, why isn't there a will in the form of a multi national consensus to get them to do the right thing? why do western governments collude with their tax evasion because to a greater or lesser extent they're their paymasters and so it goes, individuals who wield way too much power and are immune to common laws.

But the question is how domwe change things? Multinational companies are notoriously difficult to deal with because they can move their corporate home from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

As we have seen with attempts to control the big companies behind the internet. You can legislatein this country, but then companies move offshore and there is nothinh you can do to control them.

If only there were ways to make them pay their way.

Glorianny

HousePlantQueen

Surely it has always been thus? From the days of families courting favour with the King (think Anne Boleyn's family), to the inner circle of just a few families who all go to the same schools, marry within their own group etc. This does not mean that I am happy about it, far from it, but scratch the surface of any family dynasty such as the Norfolks, Howards etc., and they generally achieved what they did by being on the winning side in a battle, marrying off their daughters, or turning a blind eye to their wife being a royal mistress.

I would argue that this situation is worse, if more obvious, in the USA, especially the Republican party with their links to evangelical Christianity and the NRA, neither of which are working to the common good.

The fact that we are discussing this, and are aware of it, and reporters are able, without fear of prosecution or persecution, to write about it, is a good thing.

So what you are saying is that things that existed under a feudal system still exist under a democratic system and that is OK.?

I think the lobbying system should be properly regulated and controlled.

No, if you read my post, I do not accept the situation, I was merely commenting that it is nothing new. I agree that there should be controls over lobbying, in the meantime, I am glad that we have Social Media to pick through and make up our own minds. Sorry if I did not make myself clear

Good post Elegran