The media often uses the phrase 'corruption in government' concerning Eastern European kleptocrats and Sub-Saharan strongmen, and it's easy to see why. Corruption is evident when it manifests itself in the disappearance of public funds or mathematically impossible election results. However, a month or so ago, it was revealed that the Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak regularly play host to an exclusive group of donors, membership of which supposedly costs upwards of £50,000 annually, with some reportedly paying upwards of £250,000.
This is a continuation of this 'cash for access' tradition that has long been an awkward stain on the mantle of Great British democracy. In 2019, opendemocracy.net revealed that 80% of the Conservatives' election campaign funding came from the 'Leader's Group.' So naturally, these ultra-wealthy donors range from hedge fund managers to oil barons to Russian oligarchs. Yet, the Conservatives failed to commit to transparency over the details of this secretive dining society.
The Financial Times reported the latest revelations, which zeroed on on the Conservative Party co-chair and nephew of the Duchess of Cornwall, Ben Elliot. Incredibly well-connected, Elliot is involved with 'Quintessentially', a firm that offers unique services to those wealthy enough to afford a membership. Supposedly, Elliot enables those who pay the membership fee to frequently liaise with Johnson and Sunak though it's unclear as to what extent this influences policy.
As a consequence of this secrecy, it's almost impossible to determine whether or not there have been any legal wrongdoings. However, one obvious thing is the sheer amount of money involved. According to the Independent, since Boris came to power, 25% of Conservative donations have come from 10 people. The largest donor is Malcolm Healey, a retail tycoon who has parted with £2m over the past two years.
Many of these donations come in the form of 'bids.' Supposedly, donors have to bid against each other for time with senior ministers, for example, a breakfast with Boris Johnson. Whilst Tory ministers are undoubtedly excellent company, and it's evident that these individuals are getting the worth of their money and using these meetings to further their agendas. Of course, it's perfectly legal for political parties to raise funds from private donors, but it becomes a grey area when these donations and meetings explicitly influence policy.
Despite Conservative Party spokesmen claiming otherwise, these 'super donors' undoubtedly use this opportunity to influence politicians. But, again, it's important not to make generalisations. Still, these people are generally more inclined towards a Laissez-Faire method of governance which tends to mean enormous tax cuts for them, their mates and their businesses. Given that this isn't necessarily in the nation's interest, there should theoretically be a legal means of curbing this unjust influence.
However, in the UK, the laws to prevent this kind of lobbying are notoriously flimsy. The first line of defence is to ensure that all 'official' lobbyists are registered, but this only accounts for those who work for private sector consultancy firms instead of working in-house, which is 1% of UK lobbyists. What's more, all interactions are supposedly logged, but this practice is yet again flawed. The legislation only necessitates the recording of interactions between consultants and ministers or permanent secretaries. According to theconversation.com, this accounts for less than 5% of general lobbying activity, although it is hard to measure by nature.
The legislation is flawed, but the fact remains that legislating every interaction between politicians and those who seek to influence them is a Herculean task. Barring some significant political reforms, the only way this corruption can be resolved is vigilance on both the public and the press. The latter must continue to report on the activities of donors whilst the former must pay attention. Legislation surrounding politics can be murky and unenforceable. Still, ultimately, all politicians are accountable to voters, and we all must be aware of who is pulling the strings behind our representatives.
Comments