Corrupt politics

It'll be so readcted that we'll not be able to work out who did what, varian. I have no great hopes of it...

Long-delayed Russia report could soon be cleared for publication

Downing Street has approved list of nominees for membership of Westminster committee which scrutinises work of security and intelligence agencies

www.independent.co.uk/topic/dominic-grieve

Jabberwok

Can't help but feel that if remain had won the referendum in exactly the same way as leave did, and Labour had won the GE with the same margin as the Tories did or even much less, we wouldn't be having this conversation!!!

? No,we certainly wouldn’t.

Davidhs

PR is not going to happen because neither Tory nor Labour support it so forget that.
Corruption compared to other countries is very low, with an independent press and judiciary will be maintained. There will be individuals that get caught from time to time, our safeguards are strong and penalties heavy, anyone trying it will get caught.
There are very few politicians that end up successful in public assessment, most fail at more than they succeed so we cannot really punish all of them.

This is the sensible view of this subject....but when has sensible appealed to some posters on GN.

I think we understand the difference! and don't need patronising comments! Nick Clegg didn't push for PR as he knew perfectly well that there was no public appetite for it . He thought AV would be more palatable, but of course it wasn't!

I don't think that pointing to corruption in other countries, or lack of democracy in other countries is any kind of argument for the defence of the actions of Jenrick for example. His behaviour certainly looked suspiciously as if he was 'doing a favour' for someone and therefore overruling local democracy. Jenrick is either corrupt or stupid for not recognising how Desmond was manipuating him. The problem is that this current government is headed by a fool who is also lazy and a liar, so it is very difficult to see where any kind of moral guidance will come from. I am saddened that people are prepared to ignore or accept what would be a sackable offence in the real world, turn a blind eye to behaviour that would appall them in their own social circle or family, just because of the political gains they think will be worth it. Talk about sell your soul.

I'm not sure that *Jabberwok, and others, understand the significant difference between AV and PR, varian.

That's what I was thinking, too, trisher. That's why I think that state funding and no donations from anywhere else (which includes bribes donations to individual MPs) is the only way to ensure that the system isn't gamed.

And perhaps MPs could be taxed on freebies, like holidays, 'friendship missions', corporate hospitality; like people are taxed for company cars.

They did not vote against any change. They voted against AV.
The public have never had the opportunity to vote on PR.

I think that the failure to insist on a PR referendum as a condition before entering a coalition with the Tories was the worst mistake that Nick Clegg made.

I understand that the public voted quite decisively against any change in the voting system therefore the Liberals had to concede that things would have to stay the same! That's democracy!

As for the financing of political parties, all should be required to only have access to finance that is generated from within individual members of the party or members of other registered integral movements attached to a party.
The problem with this being there are more millionaire members of the Tory party than Labour. You would also need to have a limit to the amount that can be donated either per member or annually. And even then it would be difficult to enforce. Like the amount of money that can be used in elections.

I totally agree with Davidhs post of 10:02 today. This government has a majority of eighty seats and gained that majority through the present first passed the post system. Therefore nothing is going to change in the next four years.

The Liberal Democrats did have a chance to bring about change in 2010 when they formed the Coalition government with the Conservative Party. If proportional representation or any other electoral system is high on their agenda that was the time they could have insisted it was brought about as terms for them joining that coalition.

As for the financing of political parties, all should be required to only have access to finance that is generated from within individual members of the party or members of other registered integral movements attached to a party.

No donations should be allowed from any source outside of that regulation. However, that, I accept, will also be something else that will not be brought forward for the next four years at least.

Jabberwok Of course we’d be hearing how the country had voted overwhelmingly for Labour and staying in the EU. I find it hilarious.

MaizieD

^The problem with AV or PR is that it can result in indecisive government^

That is so very ironic given the way our government has handled the present pandemic crisis!

Coalitions mean that government has to be by consensus. As varian said, it accommodates more views and is more likely to reach decisions that represent the majority of the voters. Not impose policies which the majority haven't voted for...

Mark Drakeford yesterday:
"They shouldn't make an announcement then work out how to do it"

PR is not going to happen because neither Tory nor Labour support it so forget that.
Corruption compared to other countries is very low, with an independent press and judiciary will be maintained. There will be individuals that get caught from time to time, our safeguards are strong and penalties heavy, anyone trying it will get caught.
There are very few politicians that end up successful in public assessment, most fail at more than they succeed so we cannot really punish all of them.

Varian wrote:

"Could there ever be a way of funding political parties which was free from the accusation that "he who pays the piper calls the tune"?"

There is always a ruling elite. No ruling elite is made up of Jesus Christ clones and there will always be some corruption.

One means to control corruption at high social levels is proportional representation. Another is utmost public scrutiny of political deals. Both these require an educated electorate.

An educated electorate is a product of free and top quality education for all including very poor people. Tories tend to be selective as to who is to get the best education and naturally select individuals who are most likely to benefit from the class status quo.

And so back to proportional representation.

Can't help but feel that if remain had won the referendum in exactly the same way as leave did, and Labour had won the GE with the same margin as the Tories did or even much less, we wouldn't be having this conversation!!!

The problem with AV or PR is that it can result in indecisive government

That is so very ironic given the way our government has handled the present pandemic crisis!

Coalitions mean that government has to be by consensus. As varian said, it accommodates more views and is more likely to reach decisions that represent the majority of the voters. Not impose policies which the majority haven't voted for...

AV is not PR.

Proportional Representation is the only true democracy. The number of MPs elected is in proportion to the number of votes for each party.

It often results in coalitions - parties have to reach agreements to co-operate and the ruling coalition actually represents the majority of voters.

varian

Is that any kind of democracy?

Yes, if AV was voted down by the majority.

67.90% against.
I would say that that is fairly decisive.

It may not please the 32.10% who voted for, but that is democracy in action.

The problem with AV or PR is that it can result in indecisive government.

Well AV was voted down by a respectable majority in 2011, so I guess the public are happy with the status quo! Must be democratic if the majority are content!

Is that any kind of democracy?

But it's seats that count in a GE, not percentages! and they were overwhelming!

Diane Abbot may not be good at sums but even she would never claim that 43% of votes was an "overwhelming majority"

Ticking ? yes, completely!