How corrupt can this Gov get?

[BoldonLad]

Not everyone reads the Guardian....

That was kind of my point....

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Pays 147,000 Pounds in donations to Tory funds and gets a peerage. Is able to make laws despite never being elected. What was it about unelected bureaucrats?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/polit...l-25110681.amp?123=&__twitter_impression=true

BJ isn't even hiding his corruption and cronyism any more.

Who is it? (to save me clicking on a Mirror link).

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Who is it? (to save me clicking on a Mirror link).

''

Boris Johnson has been accused of “banana republic” cronyism after handing a life peerage and a ministerial job to a financier who has donated £147,000 to the Conservative Party.

Banker Malcolm Offord will be entitled to sit in the House of Lords and make laws for the rest of his life, despite never having been elected.

''

 

[BoldonLad]

I don't really see the problem, there are approximately 750 of them in there, all claiming expenses, and, no doubt enjoying subsidised meals and drinks. Not one of them has been elected, most are there because of some form of patronage or back scratching... get rid of the lot of them.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Malcolm Offord will be entitled to sit in the House of Lords and make laws for the rest of his life, despite never having been elected.

Thanks.

That’ll be the Malcolm Offord who was behind the fake Vote No Borders ’movement’ against Scottish Independence. A supposedly grasssroots group, which never met and had no members yet bizarrely had enormous coverage and publicity by BBC and BBC Scotland in a propaganda campaign Leading up to the first referendum.

VNB was registered at the same address as Acanchi Ltd, a global PR company specialising in government/country rebranding, with the Israeli Govt being one such client. Offord was chief executive of Acanchi.

Now, after throwing cash at the Tory Party he’s a feckin’ peer and a minister in the Scottish Office.

Stinks, doesn’t?

Edit: I almost forgot. VNB was subsequently fined for failing to produce accounts to Companies House.

 

[Fab Foodie]

View: https://www.facebook.com/ledbydonkeys/videos/248322360640756/?vh=e&extid=0


I think this is a good indication…..

 

[Beebo]

I don't really see the problem, there are approximately 750 of them in there, all claiming expenses, and, no doubt enjoying subsidised meals and drinks. Not one of them has been elected, most are there because of some form of patronage or back scratching... get rid of the lot of them.

All well and good but what do you replace it with? You need some sort of upper chamber.
The issue of cost will arise however you arrange an upper chamber.
The unelected aspect doesn’t bother me too much as long as it is sensibility managed. Get rid of hereditary peers and the bishops, introduced more skilled and responsible members.
My suggestion would be a time limited peerage with maybe 400 members using experts in both political life and business, overseen by a truly independent body to ensure a reasonable level of fairness.
The Lords already has plenty of very good highly skilled people who take the role very seriously.

 

[FishFright]

All well and good but what do you replace it with? You need some sort of upper chamber.
The issue of cost will arise however you arrange an upper chamber.
The unelected aspect doesn’t bother me too much as long as it is sensibility managed. Get rid of hereditary peers and the bishops, introduced more skilled and responsible members.
My suggestion would be a time limited peerage with maybe 400 members using experts in both political life and business, overseen by a truly independent body to ensure a reasonable level of fairness.
The Lords already has plenty of very good highly skilled people who take the role very seriously.

I'd like to see membership of any type of upper chamber either as elected or applied for like any other job. As long as it's not at the behest of what party is in power which is an open door to corruption.

 

[BoldonLad]

All well and good but what do you replace it with? You need some sort of upper chamber.
The issue of cost will arise however you arrange an upper chamber.
The unelected aspect doesn’t bother me too much as long as it is sensibility managed. Get rid of hereditary peers and the bishops, introduced more skilled and responsible members.
My suggestion would be a time limited peerage with maybe 400 members using experts in both political life and business, overseen by a truly independent body to ensure a reasonable level of fairness.
The Lords already has plenty of very good highly skilled people who take the role very seriously.

I don’t really know what I do want, more a case of knowing what I don’t want:
Don’t want too many members, 200 max say
Don’t want hereditary members
Don’t want bishops or any membership based on religion
Don’t want membership based on ruling party’s patronage

all a bit negative, sorry

 

[stowie]

I don’t really know what I do want, more a case of knowing what I don’t want:
Don’t want too many members, 200 max say
Don’t want hereditary members
Don’t want bishops or any membership based on religion
Don’t want membership based on ruling party’s patronage

all a bit negative, sorry

I know it is a bit off topic (maybe a new thread), but your post sums up my feeling on the HoL.

Having a key institution being stuffed with people who either helped or paid the government for the role is very far from ideal.

Having an elected upper house would seem the natural alternative, but I am not sure that is a great idea either.

In among the cronies and bishops there are people who normally would not be in politics but have an expertise that is valuable when scrutinising new legislation.

Having an elected house based on the vote share of each party seems a balance to the FPTP system if the HoL role remains unchanged (that is scrutinizing but within bounds). Maybe those people with expertise could be part of this, but as a type of committee role assisting the HoL?

I really don't know. I do know that having Claire Fox and Ian Botham in the House of Lords is probably not really helping the democratic process.

 

[mudsticks]

I know it is a bit off topic (maybe a new thread), but your post sums up my feeling on the HoL.

Having a key institution being stuffed with people who either helped or paid the government for the role is very far from ideal.

Having an elected upper house would seem the natural alternative, but I am not sure that is a great idea either.

In among the cronies and bishops there are people who normally would not be in politics but have an expertise that is valuable when scrutinising new legislation.

Having an elected house based on the vote share of each party seems a balance to the FPTP system if the HoL role remains unchanged (that is scrutinizing but within bounds). Maybe those people with expertise could be part of this, but as a type of committee role assisting the HoL?

I really don't know. I do know that having Claire Fox and Ian Botham in the House of Lords is probably not really helping the democratic process.

Other countries have second chambers to scrutinise legislation.

I'm sure we could learn from the best of those,
if we were so inclined..

 

[Archie_tect]

The excessively expensive payments for PPE to the Gov'ts friends and contacts during the first months of lockdown would have paid the £2b. cost for the £20/week UC indefinitely.

Never has so much been paid to so few at the expense of the many.

 

[stowie]

The excessively expensive payments for PPE to the Gov'ts friends and contacts during the first months of lockdown would have paid the £2b. cost for the £20/week UC indefinitely.

Never has so much been paid to so few at the expense of the many.

From Led By Donkeys



I do understand why this is happening. The current government is a moral vacuum. What I don't really understand is why so few seen to care.

I understand that procurement during a crisis may not have the luxury of being able to go through all the safeguards for government spending. What should have happened is that it is done retrospectively within months of the contracts being placed, and for all in government to be absolutely aware that all spending will be scutinised by both parliament and a totally independent authority with access to all documentation and ability to issue criminal and civil proceedings. If those in government knew that they would be scrutinised after the event, we might not be in the situation now. As it is, Johnson and his cronies will push any enquiry so far down the road that they will be long gone from parliament and make sure it is so toothless that nothing happens.

 

[downesy]

In answer to the thread title, I believe we're only scratching the surface.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Foxglove.org.uk (I know little about them) have just been granted a full judicial review into the government's use of ''disappearing'' messages, courtesy of WhatsApp and Signal.