I read something like that in an agriculture publication a couple of days ago.
They are struggling in Norway, as well, due to the almost closed borders, and the lack of migrant workers. They have had some partial successes in hiring teens & university students who cannot go abroad, or in some cases, cannot return home for the summer.
661-Pete wrote: ↑4 Jun 2021, 9:32am
Anyway, I think it's wrong to imbue a political party with accusations of
future potential scandals or rifts, for which there is no basis at the present time. As I said before, 'wait and see'.
I think that the Greens are an important part of modern politics. I have been voting for them for most of my adult life across multiple countries. But in first-past-the-post systems, their most important role is one of opposition. Although I would like to see them hold power in more places, and they have been effective in local politics, they play an important role in several countries in opposing harmful policies.
John Dalberg-Acton wrote:Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men..
The Green party politicians that I am personally acquainted with are universally decent people with their environments and communities foremost in their minds. They are basically trustworthy folks. But I also think that it is a minority of folks in this world who can succeed in politics without being corrupted by it, if only because the system is set up to corrupt, with long standing practices of favour exchanges, under-the-table deals, lobbying, and various ways for those in political power to gain wealth. Even parties who run on anti-corruption platforms with specific objectives, and win, have trouble not being corrupted, and so, so many of those objectives never get implemented. Globally, we have a problem with money in politics. It isn't as bad in the UK as some places, but it's far from the best. Without completely changing the political system, there are a few things that I think might help:
-stricter rules around lobbying & less dependence on funding
-complete ban on political donations over £1000
-a requirement for MPs and anyone with significant authority in government to hand over all financial assets to independent management
-a ban on MPs taking consulting roles, second jobs, or speaking engagements, with some specific exceptions (i.e. lecturing at a university for a nominal fee)
-establishment of an independent oversight body
-effective enforcement of the rules (e.g. exclusion & fines)
I also think that first-past-the-post is a system that lends itself more than many others to corruption. Although politics in general should be a system of cooperation, trade-offs, and compromises, when one party holds power, especially when one party holds power for an extended period, it prevents oversight & effective opposition. We have arrived at a situation where the fox is guarding the hen house, without gaining much for it.
Arend Lijphart wrote:majoritarian democracies do not outperform the consensus democracies on effective government and effective policy-making—in fact, the consensus democracies have the better record—but the consensus democracies do clearly outperform the majoritarian democracies with regard to the quality of democracy and democratic representation as well as with regard to what I have called the kindness and gentleness of their public policy orientations.*
Where the majoritarian model refers to a general type of democracy based upon the Westminster form of government, and the consensus
model tries to share, disperse, and restrain power in a variety of ways, such as coalitions, multiparty systems, proportional representation, strong bicameralism, judicial review, and the independence of significant institutions, such as the central bank.
*
PATTERNS OF DEMOCRACY: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom