UKC

There used to be a perception that things weren't so bad in the UK, but in recent years....

- Banking; the entire business model of banks from 2000-2009 effectively fraud
- Food industry; horsemeat scandal
- Manufacturing; Tata Steel being investigated for falsifying mill certificates
- Tax evasion by big business
- Accounting; the falsifying of financial returns (RBS etc)
- Power generation; cynical harvesting of public subsidy by the major energy generators

Are things worse now than they used to be?

In reply to GForce1:


I think we invented it, just check out the East India Company as an example, Corrupting the rest of the world since the 1600.

In reply to GForce1:


Probably better than they ever have been. In this digital age money is easier to track than ever.
The big difference between days of old and now is 24/7 instant news.

In reply to OwenM:


A classic, I think the British Empire used to sell opium to the Chinese. opium wars etc.. followed.

Or the many oil companies start in the ME etc.. where we took their oil and sold it, keeping a massive percentage as a fee for the 'technical' knowledge. And we wonder why we are hated. This oil money formed the foundations of nearly all the western big oil companies.

In reply to OwenM:

The UK is the best at the world in corruption as we've been doing it and keeping it hidden for 500 years. The rest are amateurs.

In reply to GForce1:

Corruption is always directly proportional to the rate of regulation, redistribution, the power of public institutions and, to a lesser extent inversely proportional to the control efficiency. There is no other way to fight corruption than to give it a smaller space - reduce regulation and redistribution.

Britain is not so bad compare to ohters yet

In reply to GForce1:



Nearly all perfectly allowable, so maybe morally corrupt, but not legally so. Blame the laws for facilitating it.

In reply to pavelk: cobblers. The ideal formula for corruption is lots of petty beauracracy and a very uneven distribution of wealth

Ithink Britain is pretty good and likely better than it used to be. I have not heard, for example, of people trying to brine coppers to avoid speeding tickets in a long time.

In reply to summo:
Did David Cameron's family not trade slaves or something like that?
( not that they were doing anything wrong if they did, it was all above board back then, I'm sure they paid all the taxes on them

Edit spelling, and added tenuous slavery link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11900726/David-Camer...

And wife Sam's family had some more direct links :-
"The research also showed that Cameron’s wife, Samantha, has slave-owning links as she is descended from the 19th-century businessman, William Jolliffe, who received £4,000 in compensation for 164 slaves after owning an estate in St Lucia"

All I have in my family history is murder, and mine is not even a murderer, just a victim (of Burke and Hare . )

In reply to Chris Harris:


What about if the laws are written by those working for big business?
Best form of corruption really. Get it legalised.

In reply to IainL:


I think you'll find the Greeks and Italians have us beaten hands down, we're the rank amateurs compared to them/.

Sorry to interrupt thus "hate the uk festival," carry on, as you were.

In reply to GForce1:

Kind of depends on what you view as being corrupt. Most corruption occurs under people's noses but only registers as corruption to an outsider. Gifts to officials in 3rd world countries are just considered fees and barely register as "corruption" to locals. Likewise, the Royal family have concessions made to them in the UK that to many in a country without a monarchy would look like institutionalized corruption. I think if you scratch the surface you'd find the country is mired in corruption, but most you accept without question.

In reply to David Martin:

Do you think if we could retire Prince Andrew , we could get into the top 10 ( perceived ) least corrupt countries

In reply to Big Ger:

Sorry to interrupt thus "hate the uk festival," carry on, as you were.

The Greeks and Italians are not even making the top 10 most corrupt .
( and we did not make the top 10 least corrupt)
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-most-corrupt-countries-in-the-...

In reply to Jim C:





Given the amount of kicking we are prepared to give ourselves, I'm surprised we don't do worse in a corruption PERCEPTION index.

In reply to Jim C:



I wonder how they'd fare in "top 10 European"


Neither did many places

In reply to off-duty:


Not 'we" mate, self loathing Brits.

In reply to GForce1:

Well, well, well, just as I thought...

http://www.thelocal.it/20160127/italy-is-still-one-of-europes-most-corrupt-...

In reply to Jim C:





Actually we did - 2015 figures (in the fairly arbitrary numeric values they use)
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

In reply to GForce1:









We probably just catch far more.

It's like doping in sports. Just because we only started catching people relative recently doesn't mean it didn't happen

In reply to pavelk:


I'm sure the top 10 most corrupt countries are just stuffed to the gills with regulations:
1. Somalia 8
=1. North Korea 8
3. Sudan 11
4. Afghanistan 12
5. South Sudan 15
6. Iraq 16
7. Turkmenistan 17
8. Uzbekistan 18
=8. Libya 18
=8. Eritrea 18

In reply to tony:


I guess technically if you get rid of all the rules then there is no corruption in the strictest sense of the word. Same way if you binned of all laws then you dont have criminals.

In reply to tony:

Many of those don't even count as countries in any meaningful sense I.e. statehood, as having a functioning political representative council, judicial processes and security apparatus along with any of the other arms of State - healthcare, sanitation, roads etc. Thr rest are pariah states, post communist totalitarian oligarchies. Almost impossible to measure corruption in comparison to the U.K. or nominal western democracies although clearly it exists in peoples daily lifes. What I mean is if we look at them as the worst examples of state corruption it doesn't tell us much about the corruption that exists here.

D

In reply to wbo:


A very salty business!

In reply to The New NickB:

Coppers take a salt very seriously

In reply to Dauphin:

Just compare South and North Europe (if you count South Europe as nominal western democracies ) and their rules.

In reply to pavelk:

They have plenty of rules.

Open nepotism, bribery of civil officials and police and mimisters who are never tried for clear breaches of political office. Bunga bunga parties... I've got lots of Spanish friends and they tell me how bent it is there.

D

In reply to GForce1:
We're 14th best in the world on current ranking
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results scroll down to below the map to get to the results table.

If you click on the "sort" box above the table you can rank just the European countries (we're 10th although it still says 14th next to us).

I remember hearing not too long ago that a survey in various countries showed that the Swedish were most concerned by corruption which confirms my view that there is paradox in these matters.
The more politicians bend over backwards to demonstrate how uncorrupt they are, the more corrupt we believe them to be and that our perception of things and reality are greatly at odds.
The same phenomenon applies to lots of things, the wealthier we become, the more concerned we are about poverty. The more opportunities we have, the more we are concerned about social mobility. The less crime there is, the more we fear it. The more women occupy positions of power and influence the more we worry about glass ceilings etc etc.
All these things have greatly improved during my lifetime yet few seemed that bothered about them when I was younger.

In reply to pec:

Err. 10th, unless there is some reason we keep referencing older tables ?

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

In reply to pec:

When did the big moral turn around begin? Shortly before we divested ourselves of the Empire and vanguished the evil of social nationalism? BTW the above screed is demonstrably bollocks, perception or ignorance of the social barriers and problems such as 'corruption in political life' is socially and culturally relative to the time period and social class you inhabit not simply subjective or objective . Who are 'We' BTW?

D

In reply to Dauphin:

I think you're overeacting a little here.
I'm simply pointing out that a well observed human trait is that our perception of reality and relaity itself do not always coincide and that how much we worry about something is not proportional to the size of the problem, not that it isn't a problem.

In reply to pec:

Sure, I agree The U.K. is not south Sudan.. It might be more of problem if you suffer from it rather than inhabit the political class that shuffle their feet, look at the ground, get caught out and then utter platitudes about promises to bring in tough new measures. Sorry if it came across as Billy big bollocks.

D

In reply to GForce1:


What examples are you thinking of? Not the perfectly legal tax avoidance schemes of Starbucks, Amazon etc presumably?


I can understand you don't like this sort of thing but it sounds suspiciously legal to me and certainly not corruption by any definition.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned offshore ownership of huge amounts of UK property wealth, exposed in the recent Panama leaks, heavily distorting our property market. Root ownership hidden through complex company arrangements that in many cases that could almost certainty only have come from corruption. Its an interesting contrast with the difficulties some locals face with housing finance; even if they clearly have the money to afford it (case the recent 59 year guy who successfully took the Coop bank to the ombudsman).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/1213...

The UK banking system was more liberal and less regulated than the US and very culpable in a 2008 global crash based on corrupt practice, that resulted in no UK prosecutions that I am aware of (and palty UK fines) and little real structural change. We in the UK are long term traders and as such are experts in keeping the very significant amount of dirty money we handle far enough away so we won't likely get burnt. Low corruption amongst politicians and a tight legal system (biased towards the rich) are almost a neccesary requirement for that trade success.

So yeah the UK is a pretty honest place but the convenience that a lot of our growth in housing and financial is based on dirty money is quietly overlooked.

In reply to Offwidth:

With all the attention of the possible tax avoidance of the Prime Minister, people seem to have missed the money laundering angle.

In reply to The New NickB:


What money laundering angle? And which bit of his 'possible tax avoidance'?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Have you missed the news this week, there have been lots of questions about possible tax avoidance by the Prime Minister. I think the bigger issue is probably the secret movement of money facilitated by companies like Mossak Fonseca and Overseas Dependancies such as the British Virgin Islands. We know for example that Mossak Fonseca's clients included members of the Brink's-Mat team and that they are likely to be at the cuddlier end of that particular sub-set of clients.

In reply to The New NickB:

There's several things that amuse me about the current spat, not least the ignorance of journalists and the gullibility of the public.

1) David Cameron publishing his tax return proves NOTHING; the whole point of tax avoidance/evasion is that you DON'T put stuff on your tax return ... 2) The gift from his mother is totally transparent, 'everyone' knows that gifts are not taxable if made >7 years before death. This seems totally sensible to me. 3) The fact that much Cameron wealth is almost certainly held in trust - whether onshore or offshore - and therefore doesn't show up on Cameron senior's will seems to have passed most commentators by. It's called 'bloodline planning', and it is legal but effing disgraceful.

In reply to GForce1:
David Cameron has done absolutely nothing wrong or illegal. The rules allow him to do with his finances exactly what he has done. His mother is perfectly at liberty to gift him £200k, its nobody else's business.

I will make the same choice in the not too distant future if I am forced to choose between giving my children £200,000 or giving them £120,000 plus £80,000 to HMRC. Its a perfectly legal choice and any decent law abiding lawyer and accountancy advisor would advise accordingly.

In reply to Dax H:




Transparency is a bit of a problem for 'traditional' corruption. However, there are other ways of extracting value. A large portion of UK corruption involves how the public sector is run and how it purchases goods and services. This is not about back-handers. It is about rent-seeking behaviour ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking ). This is the manner in which countless contracts go through due process but still go to the usual suspects. It is also the manner in which former senior civil servants and politician acquire lucrative positions in the private sector. It goes well beyond that however. The corruption pyramid that exists in Afghanistan or Nigeria that gets everyone a cut acts here with bureaucratic rents as currency rather than pounds or afghani or naira.

Generations ago, as the public sector was just beginning its vast expansion, public sector jobs were poorly paid and offered mainly security (although influence cannot be excluded from the calculation). For instance, until relatively recent times, soldiers' and police officers' pay was abysmal. Likewise civil servants and local government staff. Now, public sector pay is in the normal range, conditions and allowances are of a high standard, security ... eh ... still exists in many quarters, and influence is perhaps less easily exercised. Security and conditions of employment are sufficient to place ordinary workers of the public sector above their private sector friends in terms of their overall well-being. Low levels of manipulation of public assets and decision-making serve to reinforce the security of public servants and reduces the overall effectiveness of the economy in both the public and private sectors. Permissions, or simply incompetence, from above, create the next layer of the pyramid as effectively as a cut of the back-hander does in other territories.

One of the horrifying things about managing a government contract is that you can follow all the EU guidelines to the letter and still end up with a bunch of useless idiots bidding in the final stage. That is a bad bad feeling. When reflecting on such an event, it becomes clear that if an unsatisfactory outcome can result from a diligent process then a corrupt outcome is not difficult to organise. The only difference from the old days is that you now have a pile of paperwork to prove you did your best. That is just one area where low levels of manipulation can operate in spite of the best efforts of legislators.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

A possible variant on what you have written is that private sector employees have seen their T&Cs eroded, rather than simply public sector employees enjoying pay rises. The former could be argued to be the fault of complacent private sector employees and a general economic malaise. For all their faults, be it tube drivers or firemen, they've been willing to take industrial action and face potential backlash to ensure their conditions remain beneficial.

But I think you are correct in the general point. My experience in civil contracts and recruiting in the public sector has been pretty positive, with everything done to the letter - almost to a fault. But, for example, if you took the MoD, and the cosy relationship of military contractors (be it BAe or the suppliers of sausages for the mess), there seems huge amount of room for corruption. The bigger the contract, the bigger the room for gifts granted and personal arrangements to be fulfilled many years down the track.

In reply to GForce1:

They are worse in Russia

In reply to David Martin:

I'd tend to agree - the requirement to be seen to be impartial, objective and fair means that the best solution can lose the process due to the requirements imposed by a huge bureaucratic monolith.
In my opinion public sector "corruption" would centre on going for what they see as the best solution and circumnavigating or paying lip service to the red tape, rather than going for the solution with a desire for a backhander or a job on retirement.