Political Corruption -

[Observer II]

Yet another stink issuing from Westminster,  and the setting up of yet another "Inquiry" into lobbying and cronyism.   Whilst the Tories perhaps just can't help it, it being part of their nature;  all politicians are prey to such temptations.   So is it time for a full root and branch reform of our archaic constitution and organisational dog's breakfast ?   

[Bill]

Yes.

 

Bill

[Observer II]

I don't think BoJo can really grasp what's going on with the surge in support for breaking up the UK;   it's basically because we have a Country split in two.   London and the S/East V the rest, and the rest require levelling up.   

[Bill]

That’s a completely different subject Obs. You started off about lobbying and cronyism.

Maybe we should apply some forum rules like to old radio program just a minute, where you loose points for repeating yourself or deviating from the subject. 😊 although I don't think any of us would last very long.

 

Bill 😊

[Observer II]

It's called digression Bill;  the system is in such a mess, it's hard not to. 

[Confused52]

5 hours ago, Observer II said:

It's called digression Bill;  the system is in such a mess, it's hard not to. 

Your split up point is wrong anyway. The Scots Nats are driven by ideological hated of the English and don't want levelling up because it would weaken their case which requires that the populace believe they are being hard done to in order to drive the grievance politics that independence relies on.  

[asperity]

What Con says.

[Davy51]

I think the Scottish Nationalist politicians have whipped up this break up furore to boost their own careers & pay packets & it will be interesting to see what happens to Scotland when left in their hands.

[Observer II]

3 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Your split up point is wrong anyway. The Scots Nats are driven by ideological hated of the English and don't want levelling up because it would weaken their case which requires that the populace believe they are being hard done to in order to drive the grievance politics that independence relies on.  

Your conflating Party Affiliations with public sentiment.   The SNP are about wrecking the Union for some Braveheart notion of Independence. My point refers to the general public mood with regard to the obvious differentials between London and the rest, which is being seized on by the petty Nationalists.   This differential isn't new,  it's existed as long as London has existed,  in recent times an attempt at rectification was made with the Barnet Formula, which attempted to redress the economic imbalance,  but given the differentials in funding in London compared to the provinces, and it's evident that some major changes are required.  Part of the solution was seen in devolved powers, which was originally intended for all Regions within the UK,  but this was hijacked by Scots and Welsh Nats in pursuit of Independence.   John Prescott, tried starting on the Regions of England, but instead of just implimenting it, he held a referendum in Northumbria, which turned down the idea, and killed it in England (with the exeption of London).   A move to a Federal system, like Germany or Australia,  would facilitate levelling up and a more equitable distribution of resources throughout the Nation, making "the Nation", as in the UNITED Kingdom, a much more solid proposition than is currently the case.    The Tories made noises about levelling up, when they realised at the last election, that the traditional "red wall" areas of the North, had deserted a London centric Labour Party;  now it rests with them to seize on this and introduce the constitutional and fiscal changes to support it.  

[Confused52]

30 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Your conflating Party Affiliations with public sentiment.   The SNP are about wrecking the Union for some Braveheart notion of Independence. My point refers to the general public mood with regard to the obvious differentials between London and the rest, which is being seized on by the petty Nationalists.   This differential isn't new,  it's existed as long as London has existed,  in recent times an attempt at rectification was made with the Barnet Formula, which attempted to redress the economic imbalance,  but given the differentials in funding in London compared to the provinces, and it's evident that some major changes are required.  Part of the solution was seen in devolved powers, which was originally intended for all Regions within the UK,  but this was hijacked by Scots and Welsh Nats in pursuit of Independence.   John Prescott, tried starting on the Regions of England, but instead of just implimenting it, he held a referendum in Northumbria, which turned down the idea, and killed it in England (with the exeption of London).   A move to a Federal system, like Germany or Australia,  would facilitate levelling up and a more equitable distribution of resources throughout the Nation, making "the Nation", as in the UNITED Kingdom, a much more solid proposition than is currently the case.    The Tories made noises about levelling up, when they realised at the last election, that the traditional "red wall" areas of the North, had deserted a London centric Labour Party;  now it rests with them to seize on this and introduce the constitutional and fiscal changes to support it.  

No I am not. You don't understand the Barnet formula, it is just about public services spending. Levelling up is about economic activity and is driven by regional market sizes, the basis of the Northern Powerhouse. The investments to make that work are not part of Barnet which addresses revenue spending whilst levelling up is capital. States in the Federal Systems you quote are nothing like equal, ask someone in the Northern Territory if they are as well funded as New South Wales or someone in Saxony how they compare with Bavaria!  

[Observer II]

I believe the public spending differentials between London and the rest are a fact that Barnet can redress;  which demands the devolved Governance to allocate it, where most needed.   The Northern powerhouse is part of the current dog's breakfast of localised Governance without an overall rational structure, added to by semi-regional Mayors and PCCs,   all piece meal additions, written on the back off envelopes.      

[Bill]

Anyway, going back to the original subject of lobbying and cronyism, the news today seems to have moved on to Matt Hancock having shares in a company that recently won some government contract.

Whether there was any under the table dealings nobody knows but surely, the only way to get rid of this sort of thing is to make it such that MPs and anyone in a position of power should not be allowed to hold shares in individual businesses while in office.

It may not solve all the problems but it would certainly eliminate both temptation and any accusations.

 

Bill 😊

[Confused52]

3 hours ago, Bill said:

Anyway, going back to the original subject of lobbying and cronyism, the news today seems to have moved on to Matt Hancock having shares in a company that recently won some government contract.

Whether there was any under the table dealings nobody knows but surely, the only way to get rid of this sort of thing is to make it such that MPs and anyone in a position of power should not be allowed to hold shares in individual businesses while in office.

It may not solve all the problems but it would certainly eliminate both temptation and any accusations.

 

Bill 😊

I thought that they already had to put such shares out of their control in some trust arrangement and not take part in any dealings with the firm concerned, the latter part of which it was reported that Hancock did.

In any case the part of the NHS that gave the firm an order was the Welsh NHS which is controlled by the Labour party controlled Welsh Government over which Hancock has no say! So Labour are complaining about their own decision, learning from the Scots I suppose.

[Bill]

I don’t normally take a lot of interest in political matters Con, so I’m not sure if there are rules or not but thinking about it there probably is.

His is sister though was apparently a major shareholder and director of the company so without including friends and family in the same way, these sorts of accusations will always happen. It could be that even these are also covered but I’m just always a bit suspicious when it comes to people with money as they can often call on legal professionals to find some way to circumvent the rules.  

 

Bill 😊

[Latchford Locks]

19 hours ago, Confused52 said:

Your split up point is wrong anyway. The Scots Nats are driven by ideological hated of the English and don't want levelling up because it would weaken their case which requires that the populace believe they are being hard done to in order to drive the grievance politics that independence relies on.  

[Observer II]

Seems this corruption flare up is going to run and run, despite the Tories trying to bottle it up with an Inquiry.   Problem is,  it's a disease that affects most politicians, irrespective of Party.     😠

[Bill]

 

So many of the problems we see in our society come down to rules and laws that haven’t changed in centuries and it’s time we brought them all up to date a bit and this goes well beyond just personal gain and cronyism.

Having a trust fund for shareholdings is little more than providing the MPs with a piggy bank and allowing the wife to hold the shares in her name is equally stupid.

IMO anyone entering public service should transfer the value of any shares into something like a national pension fund that can’t be affected by the actions of a single MP and when they’re done, they can buy back their shares.

 

Bill 😊

[Observer II]

The problem is Bill, the changes required to expel corruption and constitutional inadequacies, require the the assent of the very people who benefit from the status quo - current politicians.    We saw how after "the people" voted for Brexit, it took four years to get the political elite to do it.     😠

[Bill]

Yes I suppose it’s like how turkeys wouldn’t exactly vote for Christmas.

It should be quite simple, you enter public service for the good of the country and the local community so just rip up all the endless pages of rules, regulations and other nonsense and replace it all with simple a unambiguous statement that says there’s no financial gain to be had by becoming an MP. The current system doesn't need reforming or tweaking, it needs scrapping.

I say put the thing to a open vote and let the people see exactly which MPs want to retain a corrupt and broken system and then see how it works out at the next elections.

  

Bill 😊

[Davy51]

Career & Politician are two words that don't exactly sit well together.  The fact that a career is involved leaves open many temptations for a person to take advantage of any opportunity to feather his/her own nest.

[asperity]

Apparently Cameron didn't make any money from his Greensill shenanigans. Hopeless at being a PM, equally hopeless at corruption 🙄

[Confused52]

2 hours ago, Bill said:

 

So many of the problems we see in our society come down to rules and laws that haven’t changed in centuries and it’s time we brought them all up to date a bit and this goes well beyond just personal gain and cronyism.

Having a trust fund for shareholdings is little more than providing the MPs with a piggy bank and allowing the wife to hold the shares in her name is equally stupid.

IMO anyone entering public service should transfer the value of any shares into something like a national pension fund that can’t be affected by the actions of a single MP and when they’re done, they can buy back their shares.

 

Bill 😊

So anyone who has done well in business will have to suffer more than those who have no experience of leading in business and the appointment of candidates to be an MP is the same as parties picking any other full time employee. The existence of free thinking MPs who are really trying to support their constituencies above party will be wiped out. I have been involved in lobbying and it is not something that I regard as in any way problematical. When companies do it it is far less of a problem than when unions do it and unions do it all of the time. Unions threaten whole industries  and companies do not. The final decisions are always with government and that does not always mean ministers. Lots of lobbying fails because the civil servants have other ideas.

[asperity]

It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first. -Ronald Reagan

[Observer II]

Think that sums it up Asp.   In effect, the people don't choose their MPs, their Parties do;  and in the case of recent Labour, they tend to be ex-uni  Westminster researchers, who've never had a proper job, being parachuted into a Northern working class constituency.  The first thing in cleaning out the stables, would be the scrapping of the House of Lords, followed by City Regional Mayors and PCC's.      😠

[Confused52]

17 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Think that sums it up Asp.   In effect, the people don't choose their MPs, their Parties do;  and in the case of recent Labour, they tend to be ex-uni  Westminster researchers, who've never had a proper job, being parachuted into a Northern working class constituency.  The first thing in cleaning out the stables, would be the scrapping of the House of Lords, followed by City Regional Mayors and PCC's.      😠

You should consider the careers of Colin Daniels, David Mowat and Andy Carter and see where your analysis is biased (and wrong).