Corruption in UK Government, an open Scandal in British politics

In the UK corruption is rarely a topic talked about, especially where Parliament is concerned. We often get the odd scandal such as, Russian donations to the conservative party, cash for questions, the expenses scandal, and lobbying scandals but no effective reforms have taken place after the news cycle has moved onto something else.

But corruption continues to be a major issue affecting UK politics from undeclared financial interests to kickbacks to MPs from lobbying.

To see how corruption in effects the highest levels of government we will look back to nineteen eleven before this point MP's were not paid which left the institution in the hands of the wealthy. For example, the famous Clive of India, after having made his wealth plundering the nation he was named for, he returned home to dominate local politics, by buying land and being awarded titles for his plundering of India Clive got himself, his cousin his father and his attorney seats in Parliament, allowing him to form his own political block in parliament. (Source http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1754-1790/member/clive-robert-1725-74)

This state of affairs lead to demands that average people should be able to get into parliament as their interests were not being reprinted by the rich. The Chartists movement which could trace its origins back to 1838 demanded, among other things, a vote for every man and for MP's to be paid so allowing the working class to send representatives to Parliament. After 72 years of petitions with millions of signatures and violent repression by the state MP's voted to take a payment. (Source http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/chartists/overview/chartistmovement/ and http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/#jump-link-15)

MP's who argued against being paid said, the working class and poor would overrun Parliament, were not desirable and besides, they said the amount of money you have shows you possess a good intellect and should be the bar to entry. This view persists to this day in many parliamentary institutions including that of the House of Lords a survey having shown they think having more representation by people who, on paper, would not have the potential to earn large amounts of money would affect governance of the country and question lower paid peoples competence.

There was a problem with MP's pay in that it was seen as an allowance rather than a wage. This differentiation gave MP's the green light to pursue other financial interests. This lead to people arriving at Parliament expecting to use their connections and political influence to make money on the side, instead of treating their position as a Member of Parliament as their sole occupation. MPs today see the role as a stepping stone to a lucrative role after politics, not a vocation, feeling dedication to their constituents. 

As time went by MP's argued that an independent body was needed to assess their pay levels because it was unpopular to vote themselves any pay rise. but, despite this perception from MP's their wages have increased in real terms by sixty percent over the last 30 Years. (Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10173107/MPs-pay-rise-how-politicians-pay-has-risen-quicker-than-the-workers.html)

Some governments have refused to give pay raises, Harold Wilson for example, in the 1970's told MP's to make up the shortfall in expenses which set parliament up for the expense scandal. Since 2015 the independent body IPSA has set rates of MP's pay and has said it will keep it in line with rises in pay in the public sector which has still resulted in pay rises. (Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/24/mps-enjoy-1000-pay-risewhile-public-sector-workers-face-cap/)

You would think since the pay level is high and the reforms have ensured MP's will get pay rises linked to that of other public workers that this would be enough for an MP to dedicate all their working time to parliamentary and constituency business. Despite this lots of MP's still have other sources of income from second jobs and lobbying interests, this can add up to income far above their wage as an MP. This raises the question are they representing their constituents or their outside financial interests and is being an MP just a stepping stone to a more lucrative career after? A report in 2015 revealed that MPs who declared second jobs made up one in five of parliamentarians, note this does not include other interests they may hold.

Some MP's have become obsessed with their other, extra financial interests seeking them out and going on extensive meetings fishing for this money, as we have seen in undercover work carried out by the press.

This obsession is also reflected in legislation, in 2006, for example, the New Labour government lead by Tony Blair, who himself has made plenty of money off the back of being prime minister, lead parliament to pass the companies act, which restricted the publishing of information from the shareholder register to third parties without permission. In this way, information from the FTSE 100 that had been accessible to the public was taken away. Naming anyone found on these files is essentially illegal. This allows Parliamentarians to have major stakes in companies but the public may never know about it.

MP's can have holdings in companies of up to 70 thousand pounds without having to declare it, which is a huge amount of money when you consider the median wage in the UK is between 22 and 27 thousand pounds. These interests when they reach above this threshold should appear on the register of interests which is very hard to search as records are presented as single web pages or as a large PDF file instead of something easier to analyse such as a spreadsheet. [show video of looking through the list] . All submissions to this register are voluntary and no parliamentary body is looking for undeclared interests. This is a severe grey area in transparency and can allow MP's to have undiscovered interests, research has found that 40% of interests go undeclared due to technical loopholes in the rules for declaring these interests. The lack of disclosure was recently seen in the non-declaration by Jeremy Hunt a Conservative member of Government who bought seven luxury flats at a discount price from a conservative party donor. In home ownership, 30% of MPs are landlords, no wonder the UK has such poor tenant protections as landlords are allowed to throw tenants out for no reason, also MPs voted down a good living standard requirement for landlords this includes MPs from the supposedly left wing Scottish national party many of who's members of parliament are landlords.

Even in the light of this research, enforcement and consequences for nondisclosure of these undisclosed interests are weak. One example of this is an MP who got caught not disclosing and interest and the response to this was to tell them to add the interest to the register in italics for a few months. The watchdog has been found to investigate few cases put to it, and some cases have later been taken to court and members found guilty of breaching parliamentary standards where the watchdog had found no reasons for the investigation. [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12019729/MPs-watchdog-Kathryn-Hudson-investigating-just-one-in-10-complaints.html]

This shows the toothlessness of the watchdog, no wonder MP's heaped the outgoing commissioner with such praise in a recent Parliamentary debate. [https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2017-07-20d.1035.3] Some of these cases have been related to lobbying the watchdog has had the criticism, for a ruling that two MP's did not break lobbying rules in a “cash for access” scandal exposed by the Telegraph and Channel 4’s Dispatches.

This specific example leads to a tacit approval that shady lobbying practices are acceptable. In fact, because of cases like this and the cash for questions scandal, which it must be noted have been carried out and revealed by the press and not the watchdog, lobbying firms have moved onto giving MPs lifestyle kickbacks such as paying for dinner at an expensive restaurant or paying for high end tickets at a desirable event.

MPs get away with this because parliamentary standards do not clearly define what counts as lobbying so members can influence high levels of government and policy even submitting complete policy documentation for their puppets to submit. Working for these groups can also lead to a lucrative role after politicians leave their posts in a revolving door between business and politicians ensuring they have continued influence as MPs expect these positions after leaving the commons. MPs justify this by claiming it is good for business to know what is going on in government so they can stratigise now and for future government action, this seems to be advocating for better access to government for those that can afford it. Some greedy MPs also say they have to take on these jobs so they can get employment after being an MP, but this is total rubbish as most MPs get high paid gigs in business after serving as an MP. Some MPs feel we are so lucky to have them that if they are qualified as a lawyer for example they should be paid what they could potentially earn, even though many of them are already wealthy after highly paid white-collar jobs, greed motivates these MP's not a sense of duty to voters or their constituents. In fact some of these MPs argue that these second jobs make them better at being a member of parliament because they get real-world experience, but why do these second jobs have to be so highly paid in sectors that most people would not have an experience of, if you want real world experience why don't they do voluntary work instead of working for big business and monied interest or get a hobby and join a club? Also, this is what MPs surgeries are for, to connect to their local constituents and their problems, who are the real constituents, the voters or financial interests.

The ordinary working person is not getting proper representation in parliament the privately educated, business and middle-class people that are the main preserve of parliament. Given this, the constant rise in MP's wages and allowance fiddilings show a large amount of greed from those already at the upper classes of society, that allows them to be the tools of those vested interests who have the money to give them.

Giving to a large political party cannot just buy you influence but also a seat at the high levels of politics in the UK as shown by the correlation between people donating a large amount to political parties and getting peerages on those parties recommendation, which is supposed to be against the rules, but as I have mentioned the standards authority is pretty much useless. This is just one problem of the unelected upper house which looks to appoint "Successful" people as they seem to define success as financial accumulation so this scues the house in favour of big business and financial interests resulting in 1/3 of the house of lords coming from big business and financial backgrounds and 12% of peers who have connections to the financial sector including representation on influential parliamentary select committees.

In this video I have tried to explain how corruption is rife in the UK's parliamentary system, and how it may continue by a lack of oversight. This has been a problem that can be traced back to the chartist movement, but even though those campaigners won their campaign for MPs to be paid, instead of getting more representatives from and for the working class of society we now have a system run by and for the richest in society. MP's when surveyed believe that they are not paid enough and many MP's themselves thinking financial interests have an influence on colleagues decision making. This shows that even the members know there is a corruption problem in Parliament but they don't want to do anything about it, some even feel they have to be too transparent with their outside interest and that they can only attract the so called, best, people by offering huge wages. This shows just how greedy they are, MPs already make a large amount of money, perhaps if they concentrated more on their constituents that obsessing about their bank balances people would be more satisfied with them. Voters wonder why nothing changes for example, banking reform; after the crisis, no major changes have taken place as many politicians work for interests in financial institutions and the revolving door means that after work in parliament many get lucrative jobs in the financial sector. Corruption of parliament is a major reason, so many interests stay undeclared because of the loopholes and lack of oversight how are normal constituents supposed to find out this information themselves? They would have to rely on other sources like an investigative journalist who don't seem to be covering this if the researches findings are to be believed up to 40% of parliament is not declaring interests. Lobbyists are said to be worried about Corbyn who has questioned the effect of lobbying and talking about clamping down on their activity, but we need another chartist movement that looks for reform of the system that allows for the recall of MPs by constituents. Only when the correct oversight is in place and the risk of punishment increased will we start to see a change. We must demand and make change from the bottom of society not wait for it from the top.