Only in the sense of the species involved..... humans. Wherever you go the positives of a place are often made negative by the sad species we are. Seeing the news over the past week and refugees fleeing from myanmar? then israelis and palestinians throwing stones at each other, then syrians living in total mess with air raids and bombings........ all the while there's overeacting moustached men with kalshnikovs riding around on the backs of toyota pickups with often a poor stray dog caught in any cross fire. We as a species are absolutely dire, yet a section of us just want to create things, make a happier sustainable world, have a contented simple life, in peace surrounded by wildlife, knowing that we have finite time and to enjoy whats been granted us on planet earth( you'll struggle to find better in anyones lifetime ). Thats easy if you believe in science rather than religion. But again that area separates us apart.
Only in the sense of the species involved..... humans. Wherever you go the positives of a place are often made negative by the sad species we are. Seeing the news over the past week and refugees fleeing from myanmar? then israelis and palestinians throwing stones at each other, then syrians living in total mess with air raids and bombings........ all the while there's overeacting moustached men with kalshnikovs riding around on the backs of toyota pickups with often a poor stray dog caught in any cross fire. We as a species are absolutely dire, yet a section of us just want to create things, make a happier sustainable world, have a contented simple life, in peace surrounded by wildlife, knowing that we have finite time and to enjoy whats been granted us on planet earth( you'll struggle to find better in anyones lifetime )
As long as you don't have to live in semi-detached next to 'em eh? (sorry cross thread....)
"The more correct question would be why is the UK relatively free of corruption."
Based on an assumption that IMO is false. Relatively free of overt corruption, maybe. Plenty of under-the-radar stuff. Honours for party funding. PFI contracts. Money changes hands by legal means rather than in brown envelopes....no moral difference.
djnotts wrote:"The more correct question would be why is the UK relatively free of corruption."
Based on an assumption that IMO is false. Relatively free of overt corruption, maybe. Plenty of under-the-radar stuff. Honours for party funding. PFI contracts. Money changes hands by legal means rather than in brown envelopes....no moral difference.
Perhaps the question should be: If the UK had huge state owned assets to sell, would it have been done so corruptly?
The UK never had such huge assets, but regarding our privatisations, I'd say the sell-offs were corrupt but the money was distributed more widely. I don't think it was as bad here, but then, the Soviet Union had just collapsed and the ex-communist gangsters were well prepared to exploit the lack of replacement structures.
And it shouldn't be forgotten that we non-corrupt western states have been happy to launder that stolen money, and make the criminals welcome in high society.
djnotts wrote:"The more correct question would be why is the UK relatively free of corruption."
Based on an assumption that IMO is false. Relatively free of overt corruption, maybe. Plenty of under-the-radar stuff. Honours for party funding. PFI contracts. Money changes hands by legal means rather than in brown envelopes....no moral difference.
Perhaps the question should be: If the UK had huge state owned assets to sell, would it have been done so corruptly?
The UK never had such huge assets, but regarding our privatisations, I'd say the sell-offs were corrupt but the money was distributed more widely. I don't think it was as bad here, but then, the Soviet Union had just collapsed and the ex-communist gangsters were well prepared to exploit the lack of replacement structures......
I also think it depends on what you call "corrupt". It's a continuum and no definitive line which is "corrupt" on one side and "above board" on the other. We seem to conveniently put e.g. focusing resources on the wealthy whilst refusing to e.g. install fire safety measures in council owned tower blocks on the "above board" side of the line - the position of which we might have set to make us "good" and Russia "bad". Another example US proposed tax cuts where according to reports the wealthy will be doing very well whilst the less well off suffer deteriorating health cover, etc. and those making the tax cuts are those who will benefit from them so where should be put that dividing point between corrupt and legitimate.
We often use "the law" as part of the way we establish the "corrupt" point but when those making the law are those who benefit I'd question "law" being necessarily relevant.
Psamathe wrote:I also think it depends on what you call "corrupt". <snip> We often use "the law" as part of the way we establish the "corrupt" point but when those making the law are those who benefit I'd question "law" being necessarily relevant.
Yes. There was some agreement up thread, that illegality isn't a necessary element of corruption.
The Russians are more honest about their corruption and don't try to hide it. Everyone knows it's there so all can play the game. In the UK corruption is hidden and only those with the knowledge can play the game.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
What nobodies mentioned is it probably dates back to the black death pandemic in the 14th century. It didn't really reach Russia so you didn't have the mass die off of the serfs. This kept the local society much more stratified right into the early 19th century. No real upwardly mobile middle class. And the communist kept it that way when they finally took power.
The saying is .... "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Your father/ grandfather/ great grandfather/ etc gave/took bribes to get any where/thing, so it's the norm and accepted. So you do it. Think the Mobs working with the Unions in 1930's America, it becomes institutionalised.
Here's an example of the way we do it, or, in this case, how we did it until very recently. I'm not suggesting there's been anything illegal or corrupt according to our way of doing it, just trying to illustrate something that viewed from a neutral perspective might be thought to infringe some pretty basic principles. It's all about perception.
In 1997 Tony Blair was elected PM which accorded him almost dictatorial powers, the only real constraint being that sooner or later he'd lose an election.
Among his selections for high office was Derry Irvine, who was appointed Lord Chancellor. Both Tony Blair and his then future wife had been pupil barristers in his chambers.
Although the historic office of Lord Chancellor involved a lot of ceremony and dressing up, it was by no means a purely ceremonial office. In constitutional terms, the incumbent straddled the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the state which written constutions tend to separate. He didn't have a military role, which was all that was missing.
He was simultaneously the speaker of the upper chamber of the legislature (in itself a bizarre mixture of hereditary privilege and political patronage - the House of Lords) minister for justice (whose powers included the secretive selection for appointment of judges and managing those appointed) and a member of the highest appeal court (again, the House of Lords. Although recent predecessors had not sat as judges in the House of Lords, he occasionally did so.)
I don't need to make the argument for this set-up being questionable because the duties have been split so there's now a separate speaker for the House of Lords (which has a smaller hereditary element to allow room for all the benificiaries of patronage) the selection of judges is now in the hands of a commission, the Supreme Court has been established to break any link with Parliament, and the Lord Chancellor is the title of the justice minister. Oh and, BTW, the first postholder was the Cheerful Chappie who decided not to stand for election but accepted a life peerage from his good friend..........
In the meantime, they do say Tony Blair isn't having to rely on his ministerial pension, apparently.
(Edited to correct an embarrassing typo.)
Last edited by thirdcrank on 15 Dec 2017, 4:46pm, edited 1 time in total.
I hope it wasn't something I said that stopped this thread.
A small example of the way our unwritten constitution works this morning, when Baron Lamont was on the box and not plugging a panto, I might add.
Somebody here who was eventually rejected at the ballot box at the 1967 General Election. However, he was created a life peer and so was given membership of the upper chamber in our democracy. Will of the people?
thirdcrank wrote:I hope it wasn't something I said that stopped this thread.
A small example of the way our unwritten constitution works this morning, when Baron Lamont was on the box and not plugging a panto, I might add.
Somebody here who was eventually rejected at the ballot box at the 1967 General Election. However, he was created a life peer and so was given membership of the upper chamber in our democracy. Will of the people?
Perhaps you shocked everyone into silence by asserting Blair became PM in 1967 (it felt like a long time but..... ).
Though it's open to abuse I'm not sure the creation of life peers after House of Commons service is corruption. And some if not most of these people have parliamentary skills where, free of the stronger party marshalling in the Lower House, they can now hold their own party to account more often.
I think that parliamentary nepotism is worse. Look at the Benn dynasty. Tony Benn and Hilary Benn, Emily Benn (twice a defeated GE candidate) and worst of all Stephen Benn - who 'somehow' got a parliamentary advisory job. I'm not saying any of these people could not or would not have been capable of doing their respective jobs but how were they selected in the first place?
And Stephen Benn has of course revived the Viscountcy of Stansgate and is likely to stand for being one of the hereditary peers in the Upper House next time a vacancy is available. That stinks more than a long-served MP getting a life peerage.
Nepotism is one thing, but if one's parent is in politricks one is exposed to influence and learns about it, has an advantage over others and is more likely to become a politrickian
The same for dentists, farmers etc
Indeed I once read that people called "Dennis" were more likely than average to become dentists
Omen ist nomen
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120 Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
I'm not suggesting that the creation of life peers in general, or in this specific case is corrupt. I'm saying that if you look at it in a neutral way, appointing people to the legislature - for that is what the House of Lords is part of - after they have been rejected by the electorate isn't a fine example of democracy. The main reason for not fundamentally reforming the House of Lords is that the greater the credibility of the upper chamber, the more its members might be emboldened to challenge the lower chamber. Instead, we muddle on with a growing bunch of placemen of both sexes. ==========================
PS re the Benns, I wasn't making a party political point; this is applies to all the parties big enough to have the opportunity of nominating life peers.
So Putin the Terrible Tsar of Russia is back according to the exit polls, what a surprise
why is Russia so corrupt? - watch this video
Videos taken from the election commission's live stream of polling stations also appeared to show some instances of officials stuffing ballots into boxes. [youtube]5UFIQamKbjg[/youtube]
(sorry cross thread....)
).