UK Politics

[Cugel]

Does you argument, by the way, apply universally? If every government contains people performing a variety of corrupt and immoral practices, of various degrees from petty to bordering on or supporting the criminal (see last Toryspiv gang for details) should we just accept them all because. "The history of every western government features this sort of thing"? Where do you (and I mean you) draw the line; or do you draw no line?

Do you mean me?

I don't draw a line. How could you? Be my guest if you have one in mind!

Minister has meeting with business leader (or sports figure). Should they both bring their own refreshments?
PM meets with foreign dignitary (let's say from Saudi); how do you manage the differences in culture, without risking offence OR risking "corruption" allegations?
Or should the PM never meet anyone? Is your rule universal?

Deflection, all that.

You seem to be saying that you accept or even tacitly approve British Parliamentary corruption, bribery and general bad-behaviours against both the interests of MPs' constituents and against various ethical traditions & codes. If I'm wrong in this assumption about your stance on this matter, please describe where you would draw that line.

And of course you can draw such a line; we all can. That doesn't mean that MPs will take any notice of us but it does provide one parameter or benchmark that helps decide who to vote for and who to not vote for.

[mattheus]

Deflection, all that.

You seem to be saying that you accept or even tacitly approve British Parliamentary corruption, bribery and general bad-behaviours against both the interests of MPs' constituents and against various ethical traditions & codes. If I'm wrong in this assumption about your stance on this matter, please describe where you would draw that line.

That's an interesting bit of interpretation ...

And of course you can draw such a line; we all can. That doesn't mean that MPs will take any notice of us but it does provide one parameter or benchmark that helps decide who to vote for and who to not vote for.

Go on then. Define your line for me. Makes sure it is practical* - we can't have an unenforcable rule-book, not for the highest levels of authority in this great country of ours.

[*Clue: you can't just cite examples from the last month and say: "THIS shouldn't be allowed!" ]

[Cugel]

Deflection, all that.

You seem to be saying that you accept or even tacitly approve British Parliamentary corruption, bribery and general bad-behaviours against both the interests of MPs' constituents and against various ethical traditions & codes. If I'm wrong in this assumption about your stance on this matter, please describe where you would draw that line.

That's an interesting bit of interpretation ...

And of course you can draw such a line; we all can. That doesn't mean that MPs will take any notice of us but it does provide one parameter or benchmark that helps decide who to vote for and who to not vote for.

Go on then. Define your line for me. Makes sure it is practical* - we can't have an unenforcable rule-book, not for the highest levels of authority in this great country of ours.

[*Clue: you can't just cite examples from the last month and say: "THIS shouldn't be allowed!" ]

My line has already been stated upthread and is very simple: no gifts at all; or, if they're unavoidable because of your "cultural factors" fully declared then handed over to the ownership of Parliament, not an individual MP.

So where's your line? Anything goes as "that's the way the world works"? But by all means continue avoiding an answer as that's an answer in itself, eh?

**************
This is the trouble with being a fan of something - the object of adoration can do no wrong in the fan's eyes. Only their pretty glamour is felt, along with the fan's glow from "belonging" to the fanclub.

[Psamathe]

Deflection, all that.

:lol:

You seem to be saying that you accept or even tacitly approve British Parliamentary corruption, bribery and general bad-behaviours against both the interests of MPs' constituents and against various ethical traditions & codes. If I'm wrong in this assumption about your stance on this matter, please describe where you would draw that line.

That's an interesting bit of interpretation ... :wink:

And of course you can draw such a line; we all can. That doesn't mean that MPs will take any notice of us but it does provide one parameter or benchmark that helps decide who to vote for and who to not vote for.

Go on then. Define your line for me. Makes sure it is practical* - we can't have an unenforcable rule-book, not for the highest levels of authority in this great country of ours.

[*Clue: you can't just cite examples from the last month and say: "THIS shouldn't be allowed!" ]

Not directed at me but the Ministerial Code (as quoted earlier in the thread in a response to a post you made) does provide guidance

Ministers should avoid accepting any gift or hospitality which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an improper obligation

One could start with
Follow the Ministerial Code

Specifics should not be necessary for politicians who are expected to have and exercise "good judgement" but if they really are so dumb as to need specifics, start with (incomplete thoughts):
• Nothing recreational (eg Taylor Swift tickets)
• Nothing from any company/organisations lobbying Government/Parliament
• Gifts received to be sold by Civil Service and money raised passed to charity
• Hospitality as part of official meetings (with Civil Servants present and recording) acceptable
• Necessary hospitality as part of attending conferences as part of Government responsibility acceptable (eg coffee breaks fine but outside/after conference parties not fine).

But we pay experts (sitting in Civil Service) who are aware of the extent and background to come-up with proper guidance

Ian

[Nearholmer]

It shouldn’t be too hard to draw lines if it has to be done explicitly.

The only area where I think it does get challenging in the case of elected representatives is in separating personal gifts, hospitality etc from those associated with the office, because the offices tend to be fairly all-consuming, and to involve masses of contacts, some of which will genuinely be friends. But, I expect that a bit of thought could come up with some formula.

The reason I’m so disappointed (see rant/lament above) is that a bloke like Starmer shouldn’t need explicit rules, he should have the instincts and experience that stop him doing bl@@dy stupid things …… he’s been a very senior paid civil servant for one thing, so he ought to be using the codes of conduct that apply there as benchmarks if nothing else.

[mattheus]

This is the trouble with being a fan of something - the object of adoration can do no wrong in the fan's eyes. Only their pretty glamour is felt, along with the fan's glow from "belonging" to the fanclub.

hee-hee! More great telepathy from Cugel

You think that just because I disagree with your critique of a public figure that I am therefore a fan, and blinded by adoration?!?!

[Psamathe]

It doesn't take a lot of thought or understanding for Starmer to have realised his accepting eg Taylor Swift tickets from the Premier League was wrong and a conflict of interest.

Football Association Premier League Ltd is owned by 20 clubs who are its shareholders and as a owned company in our capitalist system it's prime responsibility is to maximise shareholder value. So their spending £4000 on Taylor Swift tickets to give to Starmer was considered by them to be in their interests and given they are currently lobbying over proposed legislation and Starmer's position in Government they clearly considered their expenditure "in their best interests" - which means they created a conflict of interest situation and Starmer didn't have the common sense nor understanding to recognise that.

IUan

[mattheus]

You seem to be saying that you accept or even tacitly approve British Parliamentary corruption, bribery and general bad-behaviours against both the interests of MPs' constituents and against various ethical traditions & codes.

Incidentally: in this respect, do you think Starmer&Co are better or worse than Johnson's lot?

[cycle tramp]

No matter who you vote for, the government wins...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/c99vnllgy3lo

In this case a protester is removed... however the guy who is doing it, isn't wearing any evidence to suggest that he is security and a couple of times places his hand I'm an attempt to hold the customer by the next, which isn't a recognised security hold.....

If he isn't security there's a chance of being done for assult...

..as monty python once wrote 'come and see the violence inherent in the system..... help help I'm being repressed".

[Nearholmer]

Incidentally: in this respect, do you think Starmer&Co are better or worse than Johnson's lot?

Way too early to tell, but Johnson set the bar so low that it would take stupendous effort to squeeze below it.

[mattheus]

Incidentally: in this respect, do you think Starmer&Co are better or worse than Johnson's lot?

Way too early to tell, but Johnson set the bar so low that it would take stupendous effort to squeeze below it.

I wasn't asking you; so forgive me for finding your non-answer of little interest!

[Cugel]

You seem to be saying that you accept or even tacitly approve British Parliamentary corruption, bribery and general bad-behaviours against both the interests of MPs' constituents and against various ethical traditions & codes.

Incidentally: in this respect, do you think Starmer&Co are better or worse than Johnson's lot?

No line from you yet, then? As I mentioned above this no-answer is an answer. [Text removed by moderator]

[Nearholmer]

Honestly, you don’t need to apologise; I wouldn’t want to find myself locked into an unspoken obligation to apologise every time I find one of your postings uninteresting.

[mattheus]

Honestly, you don’t need to apologise; I wouldn’t want to find myself locked into an unspoken obligation to apologise every time I find one of your postings uninteresting.

[mattheus]

You seem to be saying that you accept or even tacitly approve British Parliamentary corruption, bribery and general bad-behaviours against both the interests of MPs' constituents and against various ethical traditions & codes.

Incidentally: in this respect, do you think Starmer&Co are better or worse than Johnson's lot?

No line from you yet, then? As I mentioned above this no-answer is an answer. [text removed by moderator]

Methinks you doth protest too much. Cugel, short of words, how did THIS happen?!? No doubt the reason will emerge ...

Meanwhile, I have no plans to define a line. There is already a line - or at least a collection of rules, laws etc- in place. We've seen that they are in practice prone to ... "flex", shall we say, over many decades and regimes. I wish you luck in defining - let alone imposing - a superior, more enforceable line or rule-set!

I myself would like to see considerable improvement in honesty and ethics from the last 14 years. Early signs are pretty good (see Starmers's statements about clothes, and we're only 2 months in!). It's ridiculous - some might say childish - to expect a move to perfection. I would be surprised if any major western democracy has a clean sheet in this regard, now or in recorded history.