Corpo is often hostile to society. It's in their interest to grow as large as possible, while keeping society from taking potential profit away from them.
If she was an American congressperson, Musk would be tweeting about how he's currently shopping for her primary challenger. Who knows, maybe he still is. His reach extends beyond the US.
Hear hear The word lobbying comes from British parliament, where influential people would bother MPs in the two lobbies as they were being counted for a vote.
When I was a personal injury solicitor, one of the firms I worked at used to send bottles of whiskey at Christmas to the taxi drivers who sent us a lot of our work. When I was a medical secretary for an orthopaedic surgeon I decided which medical reports to do first for solicitors. The other secretaries and I had a list of which solicitors we'd helped out during the year, and crossed their names out as the bottles arrived. Never bribed an MP though
If we had a mandate that protected the public interest, all of those private meetings with Google reps would have been done in front of cameras so we could all see what was agreed, who was involved and what they got out of it. But the public interest is not represented in any government, so this will never happen.
A democracy only elects a government, as soon as the election is over it is a dictatorship, where they can do whatever they want, until the next election.
That's definitely one way to analyze it. I do think it'd be more helpful to figure out ways to make representatives more accountable to the will and benefit of the people as a whole, or those of us who are suffering most greatly/unduly... instead of stretching the definitions of things to make an evocative point.
Yeah google was feeling the waters. Did not go their way. I just wonder how morally corrupt you have to be accept such thing. Or maybe it so that you have to be Morally EXTREMELY sincere and incorruptible.
I don't care that politicians can be bribed, I care how cheap they are. Getting a $15,000 payment/donation for deals worth billions is the infuriating part. And they don't cut us in! "I accepted a $2 million dollar donation to vote this way, and google is paying for all road work in the city for the next 12 years" is something I'd get behind. But if they take 15k to fuck us, why can't we raise $16k to make them fuck the big boys?
What keeps baffling me is how lobbyism is allowed. I mean, the US governent is bought and paid for, that's a different topic. But in most western democracies this kind of stuff is not forbidden. Outright corruption is prohibited of course, but there seem to be so many loopholes and grey areas.
Why should it be banned? I can lobby my MP. I can see him every few weeks when he comes to my town and you can talk to him. Lots of people lobby their MPs if they are having problems and MP surgeries are an essential part of being an MP. A company lobbying for something is no different. Bribery is totally different, where a company says "I will give you this huge sum of money to do this". But does she really think Heathrow giving her some biscuits was bribery?
Because lobbying is actually a good thing. Why? Because lobbying allows groups of people to pursue their goals, like saving a local wetland, by organizing and talking to their representatives. And hiring a professional firm to handle that actually allows people to accomplish those goals more effectively, because professionals actually know what they are doing. Lobbying is like being a salesman, it's a skill.
We must learn to separate bribery from lobbying. Lobbying is good. Bribery is not.
She's 31 now. I hope she continues to keep these values going forward (though I don't agree with every bill she's ever signed). If so, she deserves a long career as an MP.
This is what politics should be about, ethics, transparency and consistency. Sticking to the values, believeing in higher purpose and not letting the ego to play the part. Elected politician is representing the people. It is not a mandate for a quick cash grab or inflating the ego.
Elected politicians don't need to represent businesses if they represent their constituents- businesses are groups of people that are already represented.
I didnt. I lived through that. While it wasnt a nice experince, UK still has a chance to correct that and get back on track. The answer to current world problems is unity and cooperation.
The issue is that positions of power attract abusers of power. Therefore, democracies are unstable and they will decay. The only people with ideas to allow regular people to make decisions about how things are run while avoiding the concentration of power are anarchists and libertarian socialists.
We need to keep electing different people then. Ones that vision aligns with ours and then hold them responsible to follow that vision. Thats how the system should work.
Yet since power is concentrated and society has a resting level of zero organization, that seems infeasible. The door is open for the US to never have another election before a regime collapse event at least. Then what? Play the same game until the next time a demagogue wins? That's not stable.
I don't think any government that ever existed was about anything other than power. People with ideas create governments, but the people who run them are generally unscrupulous.
Yes, power corrupts, but we should be the ones with true power. If a politician doesnt do what he or she promised, we should change them and replace with someone else. I know it isnt easy, but thats how the system was designed.
You want a democrat who wins. Have them start speaking this goddamn language. Won't get elected? Well we keep having the ones who won't take this action not get elected either.
Well except for the fact that people who don't speak like this do actually win elections. The entire GOP is for corporate lobbying and grifting, and they now control most of the Federal and State governments. Their voters always show up.
If you want a Democrat to do this, then you need to show up (long before the election) and provide enough votes or donations to allow them to campaign with this stance. People who only show up when romanced, aren't reliable voters.
I'm pretty sick of repeating the Clinton's losing tactic as we slide further and futher to the right. There's a whole shitload of disenfranchised people who have given up. Or keep making the same mistake until I can finally piss on Carville's grave. I look forward to that.
That's the GOP. Yet the democratic party seems to think if they talk the same they'll get those assholes to vote for them. They won't. Stop repeating the center-rights naysaying. This won't get fixed by neoliberal bullshit.
I guess it comes down to who is getting involved with the Dems. Because if the only people that show up to volunteer, vote, and donate are Centrists, Capitalists, and Neoliberals; then guess who the Dems will represent?
If you want them to change, then you might actually have to do your duty as a citizen and show up more than in a voting booth. You might have to actually organize and communicate with the Party before the election. Otherwise you will continue to be ignored for thos that do show.
Or, you could act like an adult and do the work. But you won't. Because you prefer to be romanced rather than being an adult that does his chores. And yes, Democracy is a chore. It doesn't fail because of stupidity, it fails because people are lazy and don't want to take responsibility for things not running perfectly. Which is what you are doing right now- being lazy and sacrificing everyone around you because we don't treat you like a special child.
I mean, great for her telling it like it is. But I find it incredibly naive that she didn't think MP's received gifts like this. That said; all gifts must be declared. These are usually investigated with harsh penalties for lying. You can identify what gifts they've received by searching here: https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/find-the-gifts-your-mp-has-received-using-our-interactive-tool Typically, the ones to receive gifts are MP's in major cities.
Also worth saying that Government Ministers actually have fewer rules about accepting and declaring gifts than either MPs or the rules that non-political civil servants have to follow. So the last 14 years worth of Tory ministers have less documentation about what they received compared to the Labour when they were in opposition, even though they had a lot more power and potential to be corrupt
Username does not check out. I don’t think your level of education warrants your username. By all means troll, but please have a degree of intelligence at allows you the position of superiority. Something you appear to be lacking.
She was already "pushed out" very early into the new government along with 6 others, for voting to abolish the 2-child benefit cap. However this just makes her an "independent" MP, they can't actually "push her out" of that. That can only happen at the next election in several years and only by Labour's new candidate for the seat getting more votes.
She's absolutely not "good". She's one of 11 British MP's who signed the pro-Russian "stop the war" statement that criticized "NATO expansionism", which blamed NATO on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
For context: she signed a bill proposed by the Stop the War Coalition, which campaigns against British involvement in military conflict, but removed her signature after backlash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarah_Sultana
On the other hand, she was suspended from Labour because she voted to scrap a benefit cap (a good thing to vote for), and is generally on the lefter side of the party. So it's a bit of a mixed bag.
I think that's the problem with politics everywhere right now. Everyone is so invested in "us vs them" systems, they can't see past someone voting against one thing their side wants done. As soon as they do, they are "bad". Between that and outrageous propaganda machines, there's no escaping the binary "with us or against us". It's stupid
It's quite a bit more than a "campaign against British involvement" - you would be hard-pressed to find a more pro-Russian stance, especially considering that this was done on very day the Russian invasion started. From your link:
Except for the part where she's completely right about NATO expansionism eastward. It's legit to criticize Russia's invasion while also acknowledging the threat NATO poses
states voluntarily joining a defensive alliance because the threat the alliance is meant to defend against manifests is not expansionism. expansionism is invading neighbouring countries by force. you might as well call the #metoo movement "expansionism that threatens the security of rapists"
For voting for an amendment to the King's Speech to amend rules known to be keeping at least 330k kids in poverty.
A policy even the PM and the main members of Labour tend to acknowledge needs to be fixed, but threw the book at seven MPs for supporting the amendment as a threat to the others to stay in their box and do as they're told.
Little bit of trivia for you, presently is it not against the rules to lie in the UK parliament, however it is against the rules to call another MP, a liar.
I love it when the powerful shield themselves behind moral standards that obscure the potential for massive harm. Tale as old as time... send the poors to brutalize each other for parcels of land, but we mustn't be uncivil to the gentry!
Same thread, its not against the rules to be found guilty of rape in the U.S. and become president. It is, however, also not against the rules to suggest fellow rapists for cabinet positions. What's not allowed (ironically) is saying "no" to the rapist in charge.
A major problem we're discovering now is that there were never rules implemented to dispose of liars, conmen and general pieces of shit because the assumption was you couldn't be outed as one and have a career, they'd just resign to escape. Unfortunately, Johnson and Trump have proven if you don't... nothing happens. So why bother hiding it anymore?
This isn't the whole story. The Speaker can call people out for stating a falsehood and punish people for repeating the same untrue statements after it has been corrected on the record. It also isn't against any rules to say that someone has said something untrue, only to call them a "liar" as a personal attack on the individual. And generally when people defy that they do it with the intention of being reprimanded so that it makes the news.
The problem is when people like Boris Johnson ignore the rules, and have enough supporters to help him do so. The system only works when enough people refuse to do the wrong thing.
Calling someone a liar is 'Unparliamentary Language', but you can say they're lying. MPs can speak under Parliamentary Privilege in the House without falling foul of the UKs awful libel laws.
His adherence and belief in the "honourable gentlemen" culture of Parliament is what first disillusioned me in Bercow during the height of his popularity. For all his bellowing for ORDERRR what did he really achieve? He just ended up being part of the pantomine performance, continuing the tradition of bald-faced lying in the HoP being acceptable and calling it out being unacceptable.
ongabonga
Go g... ma'am!!
RICKEYDD
1+
rajsai22
she is right
kvakajek
Took me a while to find it, but here's a longer version from YT
https://youtu.be/cfshIDvJrB0?si=2hpEZieYGT6nKfFi
secularink
ty
YippeeKayakOB
Reminded me to rewatch this one
WarmLiquidGooPhase
Imagine if all politicians were like this
IwishKimPinewasmygirlfriend
You mean pro putin? This is a good speech, but it's not enough.
GnomeDeGuerre
Corpo is often hostile to society. It's in their interest to grow as large as possible, while keeping society from taking potential profit away from them.
hyperchondriac
If she was an American congressperson, Musk would be tweeting about how he's currently shopping for her primary challenger. Who knows, maybe he still is. His reach extends beyond the US.
corylusavellana
Hear hear
The word lobbying comes from British parliament, where influential people would bother MPs in the two lobbies as they were being counted for a vote.
SoberAndBored
When I was a personal injury solicitor, one of the firms I worked at used to send bottles of whiskey at Christmas to the taxi drivers who sent us a lot of our work. When I was a medical secretary for an orthopaedic surgeon I decided which medical reports to do first for solicitors. The other secretaries and I had a list of which solicitors we'd helped out during the year, and crossed their names out as the bottles arrived. Never bribed an MP though
SemperFiZero
Lol she outed all the other MP's that never once spoke about this, good on her.
4t0m1c4
If we had a mandate that protected the public interest, all of those private meetings with Google reps would have been done in front of cameras so we could all see what was agreed, who was involved and what they got out of it. But the public interest is not represented in any government, so this will never happen.
Kingstonboy
A democracy only elects a government, as soon as the election is over it is a dictatorship, where they can do whatever they want, until the next election.
SpectralSpider
That's definitely one way to analyze it. I do think it'd be more helpful to figure out ways to make representatives more accountable to the will and benefit of the people as a whole, or those of us who are suffering most greatly/unduly... instead of stretching the definitions of things to make an evocative point.
Kingstonboy
If not a dictatorship, then it is an oligarchy.
AsIWasSaying
Sarky.
Type17
Politics everywhere needs more sark.
badkluster04
And chuds still getting mad when video games villains are Big Corporations, call it woke
arfysdad
OP, does she have a name? Let's give some credit here.
wambu
If you were surprised, you may be too naive for the job.
noReallyIamPrincessBob
Good for her!
pareidoliaperson
Yeah google was feeling the waters. Did not go their way. I just wonder how morally corrupt you have to be accept such thing. Or maybe it so that you have to be Morally EXTREMELY sincere and incorruptible.
TwiceK
I don't care that politicians can be bribed, I care how cheap they are. Getting a $15,000 payment/donation for deals worth billions is the infuriating part. And they don't cut us in! "I accepted a $2 million dollar donation to vote this way, and google is paying for all road work in the city for the next 12 years" is something I'd get behind. But if they take 15k to fuck us, why can't we raise $16k to make them fuck the big boys?
Dizastrpiece
AnAverageBoxEnthusiast
Get Um!!!
GiantFlyingLabia
She’s got ethics. She’ll never make it
cAPTNcAPSLOCK
What keeps baffling me is how lobbyism is allowed. I mean, the US governent is bought and paid for, that's a different topic. But in most western democracies this kind of stuff is not forbidden. Outright corruption is prohibited of course, but there seem to be so many loopholes and grey areas.
CarlBassett
Why should it be banned? I can lobby my MP. I can see him every few weeks when he comes to my town and you can talk to him. Lots of people lobby their MPs if they are having problems and MP surgeries are an essential part of being an MP. A company lobbying for something is no different. Bribery is totally different, where a company says "I will give you this huge sum of money to do this". But does she really think Heathrow giving her some biscuits was bribery?
freshthrowaway1138
Because lobbying is actually a good thing. Why? Because lobbying allows groups of people to pursue their goals, like saving a local wetland, by organizing and talking to their representatives. And hiring a professional firm to handle that actually allows people to accomplish those goals more effectively, because professionals actually know what they are doing. Lobbying is like being a salesman, it's a skill.
We must learn to separate bribery from lobbying. Lobbying is good. Bribery is not.
themagiciantarotcard
She's 31 now. I hope she continues to keep these values going forward (though I don't agree with every bill she's ever signed). If so, she deserves a long career as an MP.
rebelft
This is what politics should be about, ethics, transparency and consistency. Sticking to the values, believeing in higher purpose and not letting the ego to play the part. Elected politician is representing the people. It is not a mandate for a quick cash grab or inflating the ego.
chiefuffaker
BWAH-HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
FermentTheRich3000
Elected politicians don't need to represent businesses if they represent their constituents- businesses are groups of people that are already represented.
sillyDad
As the saying goes: the people that want to be politicians are oftentimes the ones least suited to be politicians
bloxxing
lets see how long these high aspirations last.
rebelft
Thats is the true test for every politician, isnt? They all start with goals and ideas and end up... well, we know how.
Yamusa
Pretty sure this is a quote from Roman empire or smth. Nothing has changed...
rebelft
It actually isn't, but if what I am saying is algned with something that has been said in the past, I dont have a problem with that.
G0MeatCube
Yes
theworldcouldbeflat
Yeah but Britain isn't the best example of "democracy". Did you forget Brexit...
rebelft
I didnt. I lived through that. While it wasnt a nice experince, UK still has a chance to correct that and get back on track. The answer to current world problems is unity and cooperation.
RoseHarmonic
The issue is that positions of power attract abusers of power. Therefore, democracies are unstable and they will decay. The only people with ideas to allow regular people to make decisions about how things are run while avoiding the concentration of power are anarchists and libertarian socialists.
rebelft
We need to keep electing different people then. Ones that vision aligns with ours and then hold them responsible to follow that vision. Thats how the system should work.
RoseHarmonic
Yet since power is concentrated and society has a resting level of zero organization, that seems infeasible. The door is open for the US to never have another election before a regime collapse event at least. Then what? Play the same game until the next time a demagogue wins? That's not stable.
rebelft
What is the alternative then? What other system is better?
canadianreserve
I don't think any government that ever existed was about anything other than power. People with ideas create governments, but the people who run them are generally unscrupulous.
rebelft
Yes, power corrupts, but we should be the ones with true power. If a politician doesnt do what he or she promised, we should change them and replace with someone else. I know it isnt easy, but thats how the system was designed.
BaronSpaghetti
You want a democrat who wins. Have them start speaking this goddamn language. Won't get elected? Well we keep having the ones who won't take this action not get elected either.
freshthrowaway1138
Well except for the fact that people who don't speak like this do actually win elections. The entire GOP is for corporate lobbying and grifting, and they now control most of the Federal and State governments. Their voters always show up.
If you want a Democrat to do this, then you need to show up (long before the election) and provide enough votes or donations to allow them to campaign with this stance. People who only show up when romanced, aren't reliable voters.
BaronSpaghetti
I'm pretty sick of repeating the Clinton's losing tactic as we slide further and futher to the right. There's a whole shitload of disenfranchised people who have given up. Or keep making the same mistake until I can finally piss on Carville's grave. I look forward to that.
BaronSpaghetti
That's the GOP. Yet the democratic party seems to think if they talk the same they'll get those assholes to vote for them. They won't. Stop repeating the center-rights naysaying. This won't get fixed by neoliberal bullshit.
freshthrowaway1138
I guess it comes down to who is getting involved with the Dems. Because if the only people that show up to volunteer, vote, and donate are Centrists, Capitalists, and Neoliberals; then guess who the Dems will represent?
If you want them to change, then you might actually have to do your duty as a citizen and show up more than in a voting booth. You might have to actually organize and communicate with the Party before the election. Otherwise you will continue to be ignored for thos that do show.
BaronSpaghetti
and I guess I won't vote at all and some people will stomp their feet and blame me when they lose. Fuck em.
freshthrowaway1138
Or, you could act like an adult and do the work. But you won't. Because you prefer to be romanced rather than being an adult that does his chores. And yes, Democracy is a chore. It doesn't fail because of stupidity, it fails because people are lazy and don't want to take responsibility for things not running perfectly. Which is what you are doing right now- being lazy and sacrificing everyone around you because we don't treat you like a special child.
Grimmy32
I mean, great for her telling it like it is. But I find it incredibly naive that she didn't think MP's received gifts like this. That said; all gifts must be declared. These are usually investigated with harsh penalties for lying. You can identify what gifts they've received by searching here: https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/find-the-gifts-your-mp-has-received-using-our-interactive-tool
Typically, the ones to receive gifts are MP's in major cities.
just4thelolz
She knew. She's using a rhetorical device.
Youhavinagiraffe
Also worth saying that Government Ministers actually have fewer rules about accepting and declaring gifts than either MPs or the rules that non-political civil servants have to follow. So the last 14 years worth of Tory ministers have less documentation about what they received compared to the Labour when they were in opposition, even though they had a lot more power and potential to be corrupt
Pally01
She knew, it was a way of phrasing it.
Grimmy32
Though you can just use the official govt' website to research a particular MP: https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-financial-interests/parliamentary-commissioner-for-standards/registers-of-interests/register-of-members-financial-interests/
herejusttopointouterrors
She knew. Is you stupid?
BL1P
lol "is you stupid" you must be american :)
SoulfireUK
Username does not check out. I don’t think your level of education warrants your username. By all means troll, but please have a degree of intelligence at allows you the position of superiority. Something you appear to be lacking.
just4thelolz
Oh, she's good!
Type17
Yeah, but no one's gonna waste any more gifts on her. /s
morningxafter
Sadly that probably means she’ll get pushed out quickly.
YewEssBee
She was already "pushed out" very early into the new government along with 6 others, for voting to abolish the 2-child benefit cap. However this just makes her an "independent" MP, they can't actually "push her out" of that. That can only happen at the next election in several years and only by Labour's new candidate for the seat getting more votes.
donorkort
She's absolutely not "good". She's one of 11 British MP's who signed the pro-Russian "stop the war" statement that criticized "NATO expansionism", which blamed NATO on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
just4thelolz
Good at what she does.
louster
For context: she signed a bill proposed by the Stop the War Coalition, which campaigns against British involvement in military conflict, but removed her signature after backlash. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarah_Sultana
On the other hand, she was suspended from Labour because she voted to scrap a benefit cap (a good thing to vote for), and is generally on the lefter side of the party. So it's a bit of a mixed bag.
hellfirerains
I think that's the problem with politics everywhere right now. Everyone is so invested in "us vs them" systems, they can't see past someone voting against one thing their side wants done. As soon as they do, they are "bad". Between that and outrageous propaganda machines, there's no escaping the binary "with us or against us". It's stupid
donorkort
It's quite a bit more than a "campaign against British involvement" - you would be hard-pressed to find a more pro-Russian stance, especially considering that this was done on very day the Russian invasion started. From your link:
Ksx20
Except for the part where she's completely right about NATO expansionism eastward. It's legit to criticize Russia's invasion while also acknowledging the threat NATO poses
donorkort
Thank you for proving my point, account with 3 points.
AVeryLongFuseWithAVeryBigBangAtTheEnd
states voluntarily joining a defensive alliance because the threat the alliance is meant to defend against manifests is not expansionism. expansionism is invading neighbouring countries by force. you might as well call the #metoo movement "expansionism that threatens the security of rapists"
Thorketil
Gifs that end too soon.
TheOneThatGotBanned
The gifts were simply to small
BorkasonBork
She asked for gifts to end soon.
catlovermrvaca
jesus christ.
Nexodaedalus
👌
WhatTheHellIsGoingOnBob
https://youtu.be/cfshIDvJrB0 Zarah Sultana
secularink
Thank you. :)
RexT109
She had her whip removed for 6 months
Alaaraaf
For voting for an amendment to the King's Speech to amend rules known to be keeping at least 330k kids in poverty.
A policy even the PM and the main members of Labour tend to acknowledge needs to be fixed, but threw the book at seven MPs for supporting the amendment as a threat to the others to stay in their box and do as they're told.
SoulfireUK
Little bit of trivia for you, presently is it not against the rules to lie in the UK parliament, however it is against the rules to call another MP, a liar.
SpectralSpider
I love it when the powerful shield themselves behind moral standards that obscure the potential for massive harm. Tale as old as time... send the poors to brutalize each other for parcels of land, but we mustn't be uncivil to the gentry!
MiHaleEsSuHale
Same thread, its not against the rules to be found guilty of rape in the U.S. and become president. It is, however, also not against the rules to suggest fellow rapists for cabinet positions. What's not allowed (ironically) is saying "no" to the rapist in charge.
chillstepx
A major problem we're discovering now is that there were never rules implemented to dispose of liars, conmen and general pieces of shit because the assumption was you couldn't be outed as one and have a career, they'd just resign to escape. Unfortunately, Johnson and Trump have proven if you don't... nothing happens. So why bother hiding it anymore?
Youhavinagiraffe
This isn't the whole story. The Speaker can call people out for stating a falsehood and punish people for repeating the same untrue statements after it has been corrected on the record. It also isn't against any rules to say that someone has said something untrue, only to call them a "liar" as a personal attack on the individual. And generally when people defy that they do it with the intention of being reprimanded so that it makes the news.
JollyJokzr
Same in Finland. They call it "speaking modified truth" instead
4manoffbrynt
Paljon lunta mutta ei taskulamppu, kaskelotti!
jayman0123
Umm... (I'm assuming Google is wrong)
sirnoahfence
No the translation is correct. No idea what it means tho.
SoulfireUK
Literally laughed out load to this, brilliant!!
4manoffbrynt
As the finns say :)
blindoptimism
It is not illegal, but it is absolutely against the rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_of_parliament?wprov=sfla1
The problem is when people like Boris Johnson ignore the rules, and have enough supporters to help him do so. The system only works when enough people refuse to do the wrong thing.
Calling someone a liar is 'Unparliamentary Language', but you can say they're lying. MPs can speak under Parliamentary Privilege in the House without falling foul of the UKs awful libel laws.
YewEssBee
His adherence and belief in the "honourable gentlemen" culture of Parliament is what first disillusioned me in Bercow during the height of his popularity. For all his bellowing for ORDERRR what did he really achieve? He just ended up being part of the pantomine performance, continuing the tradition of bald-faced lying in the HoP being acceptable and calling it out being unacceptable.
blindoptimism
I have high hopes for constitutional reform under this Parliament. Let's see how long they last!