Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Neil]

Quite.

But this is what I mean by focusing on what PMs and Ministers do after they leave office as the main avenue for corruption in the UK. There's no need to take actual bribes when you can just wait a couple of years after leaving office and cash in.

On the other hand, if you restrict former MPs too heavily from leading any kind of public life, then that's how you get a political class that is really a class.  It's cruising for an aristocracy, which would be especially funny in a country that has gone out of its way to faux-idolize the working class and their culture for the last thirty years or so. 

[Sheilbh]

The sheltered life of people on this island my goodness. 

I wonder how many know the meat they eat must first be slaughtered

I think this every time I read the Guardian on rural affairs And I do have very little time for the vast majority of this country who are outraged about Geronimo but eat supermarket chicken

I think my favourite/the most unhinged bit of this was the bit when the owner of the alpaca volunteered to be shot in its place

I also saw the story on the BBC website:

Geronimo the alpaca: Protesters march on Downing Street
More than 100,000 people sign petition calling on Boris Johnson to hal the alpaca's execution.

And I really feel like "execution" needs to be in quotation marks.

On the other hand, if you restrict former MPs too heavily from leading any kind of public life, then that's how you get a political class that is really a class.  It's cruising for an aristocracy, which would be especially funny in a country that has gone out of its way to faux-idolize the working class and their culture for the last thirty years or so. 

Arguably that's happened. We used to be far more relaxed about the idea of "outside interests" as long as they were declared - I think our political culture's become a lot more censorious about this, especially after the expenses scandal. So we now have a lot of politicians whose only income/job is as an MP - which is contrast to the time, even in the 90s, when you had practicing barristers or company directors or active trade union officials who were also MPs.

[Josquius]

The expenses scandal is another one. Its bizzare there was so much rage about a few tens of thousands on duck houses et al but Cameron's millions just isn't making the same scale of news.

[Sheilbh]

The expenses scandal is another one. Its bizzare there was so much rage about a few tens of thousands on duck houses et al but Cameron's millions just isn't making the same scale of news.

Expenses I think was the first sort of proof that "they're all in it for money"/"they're all the same" and a lot of MPs were misusing expenses money (not least because they hadn't voted for a pay rise for a while because that would look bad). Plus it's public money and it's on a scale people can understand - flipping which house is your main residence so the taxpayer pays for your mortgage or ten grand on the garden is something people can quantify and understand. I think once you're in millions it is more difficult for people to really grapple with. And I think that's almost magnified on the pathetically low level of some of the claims - because MPs were basically expensing everything you got ridiculous stories about them not even being willing to pay for a pint of milk or a chocolate bar.

But this always comes up - I've seen recent stories about the expenses claimed by civil servants especially Department of Health during the pandemic and I think that was probably reflecting in the fact that they were in the office a lot and claiming expenses for their dinner.

Plus I think people are a bit relaxed about former leaders earning millions in consultancy fees once they leave office. I think this started with John Major who earned a lot as an advisor to the Kuwaiti government and various oil companies, similarly Blair (as I say: JP Morgan, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia). Both were attacked for it when convenient and you'll always see a reference to Blair's earnings in any article about him in the Mail

I think the distinguishing feature is Cameron couldn't get money from blue-chip autocracies or companies because I think Brexit ruined his reputation (it should have been ruined before then) so he got his money from a dodgy supply chain finance company that went bust during covid. And he didn't even get anything from his lobbying - it was unsuccessful. So there aren't many positives but I feel like he probably won't earn much from this stuff in the future because he clearly doesn't actually have any leverage on ministers anymore as well as the lingering stink of a failed political reputation (which has increased: austerity, Brexit, China - it's hard to think of anything the Cameron government did that isn't now widely discredited).

Edit: And I do think it is a reasonable and important point in talking about corruption to note that while Cameron was wrong in his lobbying and shouldn't have been able to lobby in the way he did - it didn't work. The company didn't get bailed out. They didn't get an exemption. The Treasury looked at them - I suspect ministers and senior officials who were contacted by Cameron asked people to look at it really closely - but they didn't qualify for covid support so they didn't get it and because of that went bust. I think it's fair to say that in a more corrupt society it would have worked.

Edit: And contrary to Hungary - I think there is a right-wing media but I don't think that necessarily means there's a "government" media. The Cameron story was, from memory, broken and really pushed by the Times. The expenses scandal was the Telegraph. The current "scandal" over the "hypocrisy" of Alok Sharma taking 30 flights ahead of COP26 (and not having to self-isolate) has been the Mail. The Sun broke the Hancock affair story. I think the desire for a scoop and a good story outweighs politics (similarly I think a lot of the Tory sleaze stories in the 90s were from the Mail and the Sun).

The sort of policy scandals/stories I think tend to break on more partisan lines - but when it's money, sex or hypocrisy the tabloids are equal opportunities.

[Tamas]

The expenses scandal is another one. Its bizzare there was so much rage about a few tens of thousands on duck houses et al but Cameron's millions just isn't making the same scale of news.

I have seen that often in regards to the out of whack level of corruption in Hungary. It has to be on a scale and context largely in line with people's budgets/problems otherwise it flies over their attention.

You get some relative peanuts to build yourself a pool? That's something people can understand - if they could get away with it they'd also like tax money to build a pool and they'll be outraged. You hand over a contract to a buddy/friendly oligarch which will pay them more tax money than an average family will pay in their entire lifetime? Just way too big a scale for most people to fathom and contextualise.

Also there's the role of the media. e.g. in Hungary, most people never learn about the billions worth of corruption. Then, a vice mayor of Budapest, a Socialist, pays 80 euros, of her own money, to ride out of the sea in Greece, and is stupid enough to post it on Instagram. Mini-scandal ensues and the myriad of government media have a field day.

[Josquius]

Sad its in Hungary too.
But yes, this is the big problem. People just don't get big numbers. A million is the same as a billion and they sort of just make peoples eyes glaze over. Whilst 10 grand to pay for your flat for a year- rage!
Its a wonder just what is to blame for people being here.

[garbon]

This doesn't track with me. If Cameron had been paid just 10k for lobbying, it would have been more of a scandal?

[The Minsky Moment]

I think the distinguishing feature is Cameron couldn't get money from blue-chip autocracies or companies because I think Brexit ruined his reputation (it should have been ruined before then) so he got his money from a dodgy supply chain finance company that went bust during covid.

The reason why Greensill's fall was so severe was that it was not perceived as dodgy but as a star player in a solid financial sector, backed by Softbank and financed by Credit Suisse and Tokio Marine.  Cameron probably thought he had a top end business client.

[Tamas]

This doesn't track with me. If Cameron had been paid just 10k for lobbying, it would have been more of a scandal?

Look at Johnson's house repainting. Far bigger media traction from what I can tell, yet a much smaller scale.

[garbon]

This doesn't track with me. If Cameron had been paid just 10k for lobbying, it would have been more of a scandal?

Look at Johnson's house repainting. Far bigger media traction from what I can tell, yet a much smaller scale.

But isn't that because he is using public money/is a current elected official?

[Sheilbh]

The reason why Greensill's fall was so severe was that it was not perceived as dodgy but as a star player in a solid financial sector, backed by Softbank and financed by Credit Suisse and Tokio Marine.  Cameron probably thought he had a top end business client.

Oh absolutely - and he was introduced to them by Sir Jeremy Heywood who was head of the civil service under Brown and Blair but also had a stint as the head of Morgan Stanley's UK investment bank. They had solid credentials - but I do think they were different even then from the type of opportunities that Tony Blair had (JP Morgan, lecturing at Yale, Zurich Insurance) or John Major (Carlyle Group, Credit Suisse). Maybe that was temperamental and Cameron wanted something more innovative/modern/disruptive. I have no doubt he thought it was a star player - I imagine he would have thought the same if he'd been advising WeWork

But in reality - from my understanding - it was very heavily reliant on providing finance to the Gupta companies which I feel like he could have discovered if he'd done any DD.

[The Minsky Moment]

This doesn't track with me. If Cameron had been paid just 10k for lobbying, it would have been more of a scandal?

It's not just the raw amounts; its the nature of the corruption and how clear the linkage is between public funds and private gain.

During the last administration the big corruption stories were Ben Carson's $31,000 dining set, Scott Pruitt's first class trip to Disneyland with his state security detail, and Zinke's helicopter fun rides. Pruitt and Zinke were the only cabinet officers to resign over corruption allegations.

What all those scandals had in common was they were both small potatoes but easy to understand.  Public money was being wasted to acquire some trivial private extravagance.

What was ignored was the massive corruption of say Wilbur Ross.  Although a fake billionaire, Ross still held very sizable commercial investments which he committed to sell but never really did.  He continued to own large stakes in energy and shipping companies directly impacted by policy decisions he made at Commerce.  It's not just that these abuses involved large sums - it's that there is no obvious "loss" to the taxpayer and Ross personal gain is opaque and indirect.  That is also one of the reasons why the massive conflicts of interest in Trump's own business affairs never got traction because it didn't involve direct use and abuse of public money. 

[Sheilbh]

But isn't that because he is using public money/is a current elected official?

Not public money - but yeah it's because he is the current Prime Minister who asked Tory donors to pay for a private benefit (refurbishing the flat in Downing Street). He'd already exhausted the public money available (£28k a year - which isn't always used).

And I don't think that's wrong - I think it is worse for a sitting PM to take money from private sources for their own benefit than for a retired PM to lobby (especially unsuccesfully).

The bigger issue I think is that the promise of future work influences current policy - the best example is Schroeder. There was no need for Gazprom to give him bungs because they were going to make him a director for 15 years after he left office.

[Legbiter]

The bigger issue I think is that the promise of future work influences current policy - the best example is Schroeder. There was no need for Gazprom to give him bungs because they were going to make him a director for 15 years after he left office.

Yeah exactly. There's an implicit understanding of getting a fat sinecure after you leave office if you behaved.

[Sheilbh]

This isn't corruption but another example of inane way public spending is covered:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/number-10-spent-100000-lavish-24715911

In this case spending by the Government Art Collection is first of all personalised as Johnson spending the money on himself and then contrasted with proposed benefit cuts. Though my personal favourite is contrasting x "wasteful" spending with how many nurses you could employ. It's kind of like public spending is measured by nurses, in the same way we measure rainforest destruction in "areas the size of Wales"