The UK (along with most of the west) has signed a UN statement calling for an immediate ceasefire on the Israel Lebanon border.
That’s really welcome, but it is noticeable how quick off the mark everyone has been compared the Gaza.
1 Like
Not about being quick of the mark, they have refused to call for a ceasefire at all in Gaza.
They did in the end. Took them a while though.
2 Likes
Is the country ready for a debate on political funding though? I wouldn’t say I fully agree with her words either, any more than I’d agree with Streeting. I think the truth lies somewhere in between, and also depends on your definition of buying a politician. If it’s to get them to do your bidding on an issue that financially benefits you personally, then I’d say that loads of people donate for causes they genuinely believe in, even if I disagree with them. Just look at the anti-abortion causes in the US as an example.
Whether we should, as a society, permit people with more money to have louder voices is a completely different issue.
4 Likes
Individual, or corporation make a financial or material donation to a politician or political party.
That donation influences a decision the politition or political party makes, which directly benefits the person or organisation making the donation.
The decision made is not necessarily to the benefit of the people they have been elected to represent the best interests of.
It happens, across ALL parties and a huge number of MP’s.
Its fucking wrong.
2 Likes
In the base case, it happens because as far as I’m aware, there’s no public funding for political parties? They have to raise money somehow.
Secondly, I’m not sure we’re agreeing on what kind of donations. Donations in kind, like clothes or match tickets and the like I’m more wary of. If it’s financial contributions to the party then I think it’s a greyer area than you suggest.
I wonder if there a radicalisation process for MPs (or wanna be MPs) who are weaned onto/are addicted onto a path that is « mutually » beneficial? Is the path different between parties?
I wonder too. I’m sure @Mascot has alluded to it being cultural, but I guess there’s also a point where if you start off in the party, you have to get used to fundraising, and from there the lines become blurrier? I think anything where the individual benefits rather than a party is ethically wrong though.
My perspective would be that there is not anything wrong with lobbying. In a way it is a way to allow the making of an informed decision. Ultimately we need a way to make it more transparent and accountable.
2 Likes
The words transparent or transparency being used regularly lately like they’re some kind of get out of jail free card.
Not to mention some of the fucking lamest explanations imaginable.
What the Tories got away with was gross, some of the stuff currently being highlighted by the media is OTT nitpicking, but some is downright wrong.
But, whether I steal a fiver or a grand from you, I’m still a fucking lowlife thieving cunt.
Maybe lack of transparency should be a get into jail card?
I discovered one interesting factlet today. Apparently, many of the events that Labour politicians declared as they were work related but paid for by a third party were also attended by Conservative ministers. However, there is a clause that ministers don’t have to declare these.
2 Likes
2 Likes
I vaguely recall this being a big issue around the time that Johnson had the flat redecoration scandal? There being separate rules for ministers and MPs.
1 Like
When? I must have missed that. We’re still arming the genocide ffs.
Just last week the UK gov abstained on a UN motion re the West Bank occupation that was in accordance with all international agreements
https://x.com/zarahsultana/status/1838952547039519231?s=46&t=Tk6buFVfyHeITdfFRWCVMg
https://x.com/zarahsultana/status/1838974704754844008?s=46&t=Tk6buFVfyHeITdfFRWCVMg
Honestly it feels like this is the only Labour MP left with any courage and integrity
3 Likes
Yep, agreed.
Maybe she’ll run for leadership when the jellyfish gets booted/resigns
2 Likes
There was a drama a few years ago that charted the career of New Labour politicians starting with them being young idealists in the early 90s, to the Iraq War. The gist was that to get anywhere in politics you have to compromise, maybe a little bit at a time, to get the nomination, then win the election, then get the junior minister gig, then get a ministerial position, then one of the big jobs. Every time the compromise just chips away at you, and every time you tell yourself ‘it’s OK - this is just to get to the next rung on the ladder’. By the time you’re holding on the real power, the compromises are so ingrained and you’re such a shell of the person who started the journey, you’re little different to the bastard you were trying to oust in the first place.
6 Likes
Quite possibly. It’s also likely she would lose an election by 100 seats.
1 Like
Surveys repeatedly show that the public is further to the “left”, on matters such as taxation, investment and the environment, than the media and pollsters would have you believe.
1 Like