For those appalled by US politics, our UK politics isn't anything to be proud of

[RegisterMe]

This is pretty gross.

And probably only the tip of the iceberg (or the nag's nose?).

[Antilogic]

UK politics isn't anything to be proud of

Glances at Brexit, winces, looks away

Nothing new mate

[Morkonan]

Wait a sec... Politicians may be getting gifts from private interest groups? And, it's possible that this might influence their decisions when it comes down to policies that can effect these groups?

I am stunned. Seriously gobsmacked. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 6000 pounds, if I read non-Freedom-Unit currency, correctly. Astonishing! The prices to buy a politician are certainly a lot cheaper than they used to be... Maybe increased competition has driven the price down?

If they were getting hookers and blow in exchange for favorable rulings, it'd probably be a bit more newsworthy, IMO. I don't know UK politics and such, but it's probably seen as being not much more than being invited to a luncheon.

[Alan Phipps]

I suspect (but do not know) that the usual constraints apply to UK MPs' hospitality events as for other UK public servants and service officials who may possibly be involved in competition and contractual/legal decision-making processes. You would have to enter the details of all external offers of hospitality or gifts into a special register before and after the event, whether it was accepted or not, and whether any 'special requests' were made during or as a result of them. That register is regularly reviewed by a governing authority (political party oversight body in this instance I would think) to make sure that no undue external influence or pressure is involved, that there is no unacceptable behaviour or unwanted exchange of information by either side, or whether any individual or body is taking too much of an advantage of one-sided hospitality and so becoming vulnerable to accusations of abuse of office and privilege.

These registers are also subject to public Freedom of Information enquiries (an often used instrument in such cases) and that was *most probably* a main reporting source for articles such as that linked.

Having been to a few official 'hospitality while in contractual negotiation' events myself in the past, I can say that such events and functions did not have the slightest effect on the opinions of the recipient bodies involved. Sure, the donor bodies are always hopeful of gaining a bit of careless intelligence or of being able to put a few (late thought of) additional points across while the hospitality is in progress, but the official decision-making process has been unaffected because the scrutiny and ruling guidance controls have always been quite apparent to those involved.

The participants would rarely attend alone, and so there is always a level of internal policing by peer (no pun intended in this case).

Just my opinion though. <shrugs>

[birdtable]

And certainly no worse than betting establishments sponsoring sports events....
In proper parliamentary circles it is called "lobbying"..... not back handers.

[Mightysword]

Took you 2 years to notice?

Here is a little cheekiness from little old me since 2 years ago:

And here some European think they have enough time to worry about Trump becoming the US president.

Just imagine ... if the UK ends up living now and the US ends up electing Trump in November ...

10, 20, or even 50 years later, how would we remember the year of 2016. The year of Political Armageddon? Have a nice ring to it.

Just a tounge in cheek to lighten thing up a bit ... you know, I admit I don't know much about this Boris Johnson fellow before this aside from the fact he was London's mayor. So I have since looked him up some since last Thursday. I definitely won't get the full picture, but from a few things people say he said, from how some English people think ... isn't Boris kinda like the UK version of Donald Trump? I mean, I have seen some pieces here in the US comparing the leave campaign and the Trump campaign are launched on similar platform ... and they do have a point. Even when it's down to the look, side by side they would pass for cousin.

And from what I gather, right now he seems to be the most likely candidate to steer the UK's ship through Brexit. And to think just only a month ago most of you Brit was making fun at American for making Trump a party candidate ... it's Karma ain't it.

So Boris is now in charge of all foreign affairs, security and counter terrorism.............

The good thing about this is if we end up somehow electing Trump in November, you Brit would have no right to make fun of us.

Boris's French counterpart already called him a liar. Look like a lot of gloves are coming off this year

Not the time stamp on those posts.

[BugMeister]

- they are under a legal obligation to return full details of all gifts and emoluments..
- we will see in due course, whether they do or not, and given that this information has now been made public knowledge,
- no doubt the authorities will endeavour to ensure that they are accurately reported..

- as has always been the case..

[Aye Capn]

@Morkonan: Your sarcasm has me in stitches right now, man!

Beto just blew 70 million bucks.

"6000 pounds OMG! End of civilization!"

Hah hah. Thanks for that. I probably woke the neighbors.

[Bishop149]

I don't know UK politics and such, but it's probably seen as being not much more than being invited to a luncheon.

The way that lobbying/corruption usually works in the UK is by a kind of deferred payment, in the form of non-executive directorships.
A company will court the favour of the relevant minister (yes luncheons and fine wines are often involved) and if said minister does as they like in terms of policy etc they will give them one of said directorships when they leave office.
These "jobs" usually involve being paid 5-6 figure sums for turning up to one board meeting a year . . . . . its not uncommon for a minister to take up several such positions upon leaving office.
This is all perfectly legal because the "bribe" is not paid whilst the minister is in office and the "job" and its insane "salary" are usually justified on the grounds of the supposed value of the former ministers "unique experience and depth of knowledge".

Its all utter BS and flagrant corruption but it will never be legislated against because guess who would be tasking with doing that. . . .
We are not nearly as bad as the US, but we are in danger of heading in the same direction, what I describe above is the thin end of a wedge.

[Morkonan]

...This is all perfectly legal because the "bribe" is not paid whilst the minister is in office and the "job" and its insane "salary" are usually justified on the grounds of the supposed value of the former ministers "unique experience and depth of knowledge"...We are not nearly as bad as the US, but we are in danger of heading in the same direction, what I describe above is the thin end of a wedge.

Ahhhh... I see. Yes, the same issues exist here with high-profile, low-responsibility, high-salary, appointments. Though, they're mostly "consultant" positions in firms known to lean one way or another. Still, it's not terribly endemic, with a lot of ex-politicians choosing the "lecture circuit."

It'd be an interesting thing to see where most US Federal-level politicians end up. Somebody has to have done a study on that at some time, I'm sure.

[Alan Phipps]

Just to prevent a 'broad-brush' statement perhaps being misunderstood as applying generally.

I have personally known several non-executive directors (NEDs) of UK firms and agencies who had key roles and worked their socks off in advising and assisting the Boards of Directors to help keep their corporate bodies legally and ethically informed/qualified as well as advancing their employers' commercial competitiveness where appropriate. They were considered well worth their salaries and were often being actively head-hunted by other corporate bodies. Of course that too will not always be the case, but I wanted to keep the given impression of NEDs somewhat more balanced.

[Morkonan]

Just to prevent a 'broad-brush' statement perhaps being misunderstood as applying generally.

I have personally known several non-executive directors (NEDs) of UK firms and agencies who had key roles and worked their socks off in advising and assisting the Boards of Directors to help keep their corporate bodies legally and ethically informed/qualified as well as advancing their employers' commercial competitiveness where appropriate. They were considered well worth their salaries and were often being actively head-hunted by other corporate bodies. Of course that too will not always be the case, but I wanted to keep the given impression of NEDs somewhat more balanced.

On a similar track: (pardon the pun..)

In the US, it's a "common thing" in business for a bit of a kind of "gifting" that goes on between a potential customer and a supplier, or any similar relationship. It skirts the lines of a lot of corporate written policy, but that sort of bending of the rules is often commonplace. At least, up to a point. People may do "favors" for each other, give small gifts that aren't, necessarily, intended as an inducement, etc. That could be anything as innocent as paying for lunch to giving someone sporting event tickets. Of course, though, if things got "serious" then what is otherwise "common practice" could turn a bit ugly. But, most people in industry tend to understand the difference between a "friendly gesture or favor" and a "bribe." Some of that extends to politicians, too, but they have to be extra-careful that it doesn't get "serious."

I don't think anyone would complain if a sporting team's owner reserved "Box Seating" for the "State Representative" should they wish to attend an event. But, things might get complicated if they included hookers and blow...

[RegisterMe]

Back when I worked for a bank I used to have to declare it if I received a gift / ticket to an event / whatever if the value was >$10.

[Antilogic]

Back when I worked for a bank I used to have to declare it if I received a gift / ticket to an event / whatever if the value was >$10.

Been in my contract for both my last 2 jobs.

Though people mostly attempt to bribe me with Jaffa cakes, I did get a pretty expensive bottle of wine from a client once.

I'm sure you know how much use I got out of that

[Chips]

Erm, UK law about fraud, bribery and corruption is mandatory for organisations to be aware of and take action over. Covered under UK Bribery Act 2010, UK Fraud Act 2006, employees and their managers are liable.

As for politicians taking "well paid" jobs for minimal effort, welcome to the world of reputation - where it's not what you do or say, it's who you know. They're not appointed as backhanders necessarily (although they may be - though that'd be against the law), it's to be able to put their name on the paper of your organisation. At the same time, yes, they do have connections and they're probably wider than you realise.

[CBJ]

Though people mostly attempt to bribe me with Jaffa cakes...

You can't just leave it like that! The real question is, does it work?

[Alan Phipps]

Note that Antilogic did not say how many pallets or even lorryloads of Jaffa cakes were involved.

[BugMeister]

yeah right:
https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit- ... ts-7399226
- rigging the vote..

the economic future of the UK..
"will of the people"..??
- what a load of rubbish..!!

[Alan Phipps]

@ Bug: So what's your point?

More eligible people in the UK who voted said Exit than Stay. That's how democracy works over here. There's no cause for any rigging conspiracy or technical dispute over that.

There is some disappointment, disillusionment and regret in some quarters now maybe. I know that an element wish that they had looked into it more and/or been rather better (and more accurately) informed before they voted (or didn't), but that is pretty much down to them in many respects. Hindsight is always so much clearer!

[BugMeister]

some of us knew it at the time - we tried to explain what was really going on..
- no-one listened..

- the future economic well-being of the UK should not be dismissed so lightly..
- to put this up for a vote (referendum) and then to deliberately confuse the electorate is a MASSIVE SCANDAL..

- ordinary people just don't understand how important these things are..
- pretty much like THATCHER'S WHOLESALE THEFT OF NATIONAL ASSETS via her so-called "share-holder's democracy" - what a load of tosh!!
- they kept spinning that BULL about "trickle-down" economics.. TOTAL TRASH..!!
- the majority are deliberately being kept stupid - just look at our outrageously lop-sided education system..
- purposely rigged to keep people uninformed..

- that's my point..
- and I'll keep on harping until people realize what is going on..
- simplifying the benefits system was supposed to be more "efficient" - total ROT..!!
- austerity was a political decision.. get that, A POLITICAL decision, made by the right-wing..
- now they expect us to cheer because (they say) austerity is over - MORE TOTAL NONSENSE!!