Why isn’t British ‘sleaze’ called what it is?(aljazeera.com)
aljazeera.com
Why isn’t British ‘sleaze’ called what it is?
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/11/15/why-is-british-sleaze-not-called-what-it-really-is
22 comments
That index measures the perceived corruption, and would be subject to the same bias the article discusses. Even when the British government gives away $24 billion dollars to people recommended by MPs and government officials, that isn't perceived as "corruption" in the same way.
> That index measures the perceived corruption, and would be subject to the same bias the article discusses.
Not sure on what grounds you make that statement.
Just actually reading the Wikipedia article:
“as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys”
And
“A study published in 2012 found a ‘very strong significant correlation’ between the Corruption Perceptions Index and two other proxies for corruption: black market activity and an overabundance of regulation.
All three metrics also had a highly significant correlation with real gross domestic product per capita”
And not saying there’s not corruption in UK or other western nations, but the aljazeera piece comes across like propaganda without much in the way of concrete data.
Not sure on what grounds you make that statement.
Just actually reading the Wikipedia article:
“as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys”
And
“A study published in 2012 found a ‘very strong significant correlation’ between the Corruption Perceptions Index and two other proxies for corruption: black market activity and an overabundance of regulation.
All three metrics also had a highly significant correlation with real gross domestic product per capita”
And not saying there’s not corruption in UK or other western nations, but the aljazeera piece comes across like propaganda without much in the way of concrete data.
>Not sure on what grounds you make that statement.
It's called the "Corruption Perceptions Index," or the index of perceived corruption. It's purely based on the opinion of people about the corruption in countries.
The correlation to the black market and overregulation further demonstrates my point, the British corruption I discussed needed no black market and was enabled by a complete lack of regulation. None of those three measurements would consider clear corruption to be corruption.
It's called the "Corruption Perceptions Index," or the index of perceived corruption. It's purely based on the opinion of people about the corruption in countries.
The correlation to the black market and overregulation further demonstrates my point, the British corruption I discussed needed no black market and was enabled by a complete lack of regulation. None of those three measurements would consider clear corruption to be corruption.
> It's purely based on the opinion of people about the corruption in countries.
I love when people don’t actually read the Wikipedia article:
“performance assessments from a group of analysts. Early CPIs used public opinion surveys. The institutions are:[
African Development Bank (based in Côte d'Ivoire) Bertelsmann Foundation (based in Germany) Economist Intelligence Unit (based in the UK) Freedom House (based in the US) Global Insight (based in US) International Institute for Management Development (based in Switzerland) Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (based in Hong Kong) The PRS Group, Inc., (based in the US) World Economic Forum World Bank”
> It's correlation to the black market and overregulation further demonstrates my point, the British corruption I discussed needed no black market and was enabled by a complete lack of regulation.
This makes no sense. Black markets are fostered by corruption. That’s why they exists. The fact that western countries have less black market activity points to less corruption not more.
I love when people don’t actually read the Wikipedia article:
“performance assessments from a group of analysts. Early CPIs used public opinion surveys. The institutions are:[
African Development Bank (based in Côte d'Ivoire) Bertelsmann Foundation (based in Germany) Economist Intelligence Unit (based in the UK) Freedom House (based in the US) Global Insight (based in US) International Institute for Management Development (based in Switzerland) Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (based in Hong Kong) The PRS Group, Inc., (based in the US) World Economic Forum World Bank”
> It's correlation to the black market and overregulation further demonstrates my point, the British corruption I discussed needed no black market and was enabled by a complete lack of regulation.
This makes no sense. Black markets are fostered by corruption. That’s why they exists. The fact that western countries have less black market activity points to less corruption not more.
It points towards black-market activity being legalized so what is effectively a despicable crime against the allmende can happen in broad daylight. This lack of "black markets" is more a indicator of systemic rot.
I did read your Wikipedia article. A performance assessment is a fancy term for an opinion unless they detail their methodology with evidence.
>The fact that western countries have less black market activity points to less corruption not more.
Western corruption needs no black market, that $24 billion dollars awarded to friends of MPs and government officials can be deposited in banks and spent in stores like any other money.
edit From the wiki article.
>The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption.
>The fact that western countries have less black market activity points to less corruption not more.
Western corruption needs no black market, that $24 billion dollars awarded to friends of MPs and government officials can be deposited in banks and spent in stores like any other money.
edit From the wiki article.
>The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption.
> I did read your Wikipedia article.
It wasn’t “my” Wikipedia article. Another commenter posted it. I just read it before commenting.
> fancy term for an opinion unless they detail their methodology with evidence.
You mean this methodology? Which is linked at the bottom of the Wikipedia article?? So you clearly didn’t read it.
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020
When I make comments on things online, I try to educate myself first rather than just asserting things with bias.
It wasn’t “my” Wikipedia article. Another commenter posted it. I just read it before commenting.
> fancy term for an opinion unless they detail their methodology with evidence.
You mean this methodology? Which is linked at the bottom of the Wikipedia article?? So you clearly didn’t read it.
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020
When I make comments on things online, I try to educate myself first rather than just asserting things with bias.
I'll admit both that I thought you were the original poster and that their methodology is available in the links, though not discussed in the Wikipedia article. However, their methodology itself backs up what I say, that they are only measuring perception of corruption. They are explicitly based on opinion, not any actual measure of corruption.
Here's the first criteria for a source from the methodology. It must
>Quantify perceptions of corruption in the public sector
Beyond that, as mentioned I did read the Wikipedia article, and your personal attacks are unnecessary.
Here's the first criteria for a source from the methodology. It must
>Quantify perceptions of corruption in the public sector
Beyond that, as mentioned I did read the Wikipedia article, and your personal attacks are unnecessary.
I didn’t make any personal attacks. It’s not a personal attack to point out that you haven’t read something that you are commenting on. And I honestly don’t believe you read it in detail before your first comments. (perhaps you skimmed it, which is not the same as reading it). Although of course I could be wrong. I just pointed out the points you made do not line up with the actual description of the Corruption Perception Index. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t read the Wikipedia page in detail, rather than read it and instead decided to make unfounded claims about it. Your misreadings, like the suggestion that there was no methodology (which is actually described in the Wikipedia page, along with a citation) only underscore that assertion. Indeed taken at face value, posting a comment that the CPI has no defined methodology could be considered purposeful misinformation.
Your first comment was
> [the CPI] would be subject to the same bias the article discusses. Even when the British government gives away $24 billion dollars to people recommended by MPs and government officials, that isn't perceived as "corruption" in the same way.
You may say that it’s a “perception” of corruption, but since we’re talking about corruption it usually has to be, since if it were just out in the open, usually that’s not where most corruption lies.
Instead the CPI asks people who are effected by corruption their assessments.
For example, members of the African Development Bank were asked questions along the following lines:
“the extent to which the executive can be held accountable for its use of funds and the results of its actions by the electorate and by the legislature and judiciary, and the extent to which public employees within the executive are required to account for the use of resources, administrative decisions, and results obtained“
Asking people effected by corruption seems like a pretty effective way to gauge corruption. In fact in your MP example, you would definitely get people pointing out that the current “sleaze” is corruption on those criteria. In fact the CPI ranks the UK at number 11 with 77 out of 100, meaning that the surveys uncovered corruption. Again that goes against your initial comment that the CPI isn’t perceiving UK corruption.
And the reason the other person posted the CPI was to provide data pointing out how the article was biased based on some concrete evidence. If on the other hand, there is some concrete data about why the CPI is biased and over reports African corruption relative to UK, and how it does so, then that’s useful information. But hand-wavy “it’s all opinion” isn’t helpful or honest.
In the end there’s clearly some reason that most African nations rate poorly on the CPI. Trying to pretend it’s all bias, that the CPI levels of African and Middle eastern countries are low only because of survey bias, requires some significant proof. (Especially if taken in the context of everything that is known about the strength of law in those countries).
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
Your first comment was
> [the CPI] would be subject to the same bias the article discusses. Even when the British government gives away $24 billion dollars to people recommended by MPs and government officials, that isn't perceived as "corruption" in the same way.
You may say that it’s a “perception” of corruption, but since we’re talking about corruption it usually has to be, since if it were just out in the open, usually that’s not where most corruption lies.
Instead the CPI asks people who are effected by corruption their assessments.
For example, members of the African Development Bank were asked questions along the following lines:
“the extent to which the executive can be held accountable for its use of funds and the results of its actions by the electorate and by the legislature and judiciary, and the extent to which public employees within the executive are required to account for the use of resources, administrative decisions, and results obtained“
Asking people effected by corruption seems like a pretty effective way to gauge corruption. In fact in your MP example, you would definitely get people pointing out that the current “sleaze” is corruption on those criteria. In fact the CPI ranks the UK at number 11 with 77 out of 100, meaning that the surveys uncovered corruption. Again that goes against your initial comment that the CPI isn’t perceiving UK corruption.
And the reason the other person posted the CPI was to provide data pointing out how the article was biased based on some concrete evidence. If on the other hand, there is some concrete data about why the CPI is biased and over reports African corruption relative to UK, and how it does so, then that’s useful information. But hand-wavy “it’s all opinion” isn’t helpful or honest.
In the end there’s clearly some reason that most African nations rate poorly on the CPI. Trying to pretend it’s all bias, that the CPI levels of African and Middle eastern countries are low only because of survey bias, requires some significant proof. (Especially if taken in the context of everything that is known about the strength of law in those countries).
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
Black market activity is by definition hidden, so how did they measure it accurately?
And since when did lots of regulations === corruption? What even counts as "an overabundance"? There's not even a clearly defined measure of regulatory abundance, let alone over.
This study sounds fishy as hell.
And since when did lots of regulations === corruption? What even counts as "an overabundance"? There's not even a clearly defined measure of regulatory abundance, let alone over.
This study sounds fishy as hell.
That perception probably matches direct experience in terms of where a normal person might be asked for a bribe while going about their normal day.
I don't think it matches the big stuff that politicians do. In the US, politicians have "speaking fees", and regulators use the "revolving door" between the public and private sector. Are those bribes, too? I think often so, despite the green color.
I don't think it matches the big stuff that politicians do. In the US, politicians have "speaking fees", and regulators use the "revolving door" between the public and private sector. Are those bribes, too? I think often so, despite the green color.
> Anyone who has spent a fair bit of time travelling and living in other countries knows that this[0] index is essentially correct.
Coincidentally, I’ve travelled a lot and lived in the USA, EU, and Asia. But I actually disagree.
Most Western citizens believe that there’s no corruption in their countries, while the reality is that it’s just less visible. In most developing countries, even the lowest levels of government get an opportunity to take a cut, but in developed countries, this is reserved for the upper levels. The amounts of money involved are still quite massive - and as most SV residents note on this site often, everything is riddled with inefficiency and favoritism with lots of corruption.
Coincidentally, I’ve travelled a lot and lived in the USA, EU, and Asia. But I actually disagree.
Most Western citizens believe that there’s no corruption in their countries, while the reality is that it’s just less visible. In most developing countries, even the lowest levels of government get an opportunity to take a cut, but in developed countries, this is reserved for the upper levels. The amounts of money involved are still quite massive - and as most SV residents note on this site often, everything is riddled with inefficiency and favoritism with lots of corruption.
If you're speaking about the USA then I'm not really sure we disagree as much as you think. I'm from Canada and have observed that Americans suffer from more political corruption than Canadians. I didn't say there was no corruption, I just said that it correlated with the map. Did Donald Trump leave office with a helicopter full of money? No. Did he grift as much as he could along side plenty of other grifters from politicians to lobbyists, absolutely.
But in percent of GDP terms, the USA is still leagues ahead of places like Afghanistan or most countries of Central Africa. Even Vietnam and Ukraine had much higher corruption than the USA, in my experience, and I'm friends with some interesting people like military contractors and business owners, accountants for Gazprom, etc.
But in percent of GDP terms, the USA is still leagues ahead of places like Afghanistan or most countries of Central Africa. Even Vietnam and Ukraine had much higher corruption than the USA, in my experience, and I'm friends with some interesting people like military contractors and business owners, accountants for Gazprom, etc.
> Most Western citizens believe that there’s no corruption in their countries, while the reality is that it’s just less visible.
That’s just completely untrue. I don’t know what people you talk to, but here in the US I can guarantee 90% of Thanksgiving dinner conversation is going to revolve around someone complaining about the corrupt politicians.
That’s just completely untrue. I don’t know what people you talk to, but here in the US I can guarantee 90% of Thanksgiving dinner conversation is going to revolve around someone complaining about the corrupt politicians.
Not even Swedes believe our country has no corruption. For example Nya Karolinska was a recent huge corruption scandal which people still talk about.
It's borderline comical for Al Jazeera to act as if corruption in the UK is even in the same ballpark as the corruption which plagues most African states.
Seriously, anyone who reads this article should also spend some time reading about Robert Mugabe or similar warlord frauds before pointing fingers at the likes of Boris Johnson.
Seriously, anyone who reads this article should also spend some time reading about Robert Mugabe or similar warlord frauds before pointing fingers at the likes of Boris Johnson.
My hot take: there are barely any popular news media that aren't owned or operated by Tory-friendly interests, or at least aren't apathetic towards Tory scandals.
I always thought that the Daily Prophet (of Harry Potter fame) was a parody of certain British press that really want overboard. Now that I've experienced British politics as a young adult, I am astounded by how much it wasn't a parody at all. The appeal to emotion is definitely real for the lower-end press, and the spin is there in almost every publication.
I always thought that the Daily Prophet (of Harry Potter fame) was a parody of certain British press that really want overboard. Now that I've experienced British politics as a young adult, I am astounded by how much it wasn't a parody at all. The appeal to emotion is definitely real for the lower-end press, and the spin is there in almost every publication.
There's the BBC of course. They're actually pretty middle of the road, but overall I'd say there is a distinct left lean. Not enough to put me off, but enough to wind up 'proper' tories.
BBC reporting is very selective. Some stories weren't covered by them at all.
All reporting is selective. Nobody can report everything, and you can't afford to waste your audience's attention.
Well, they DID lean left, but now they've been pretty much bought by the tories and their funding depends on sucking up to them.
They have always leant left, and still do. They just didn't like Jeremy Corbyn much. Being anti-Corbyn is not being anti-Labour.
I'm not sure they like Kier Starmer that much either, I don't think Corbyn is really relevant now anyway, unless you are strongly for or against momentum. I'm thinking more of holding the government to account at the forefront of the BBC news page (it may happen on radio 4, but not many people see that relatively). During/since covid BBC has acted as a communication funnel directly and without criticism which would not have happened in the 80s/90s.
Bring back the original Spitting Image, Yes, Minister, Boys From the Blackstuff!
Bring back the original Spitting Image, Yes, Minister, Boys From the Blackstuff!
> overall I'd say there is a distinct left lean
Depends on the topic. Since having had Tory donors and Tory politicians appointed to various positions, their domestic politics reporting has become decidedly pro-Tory.
Depends on the topic. Since having had Tory donors and Tory politicians appointed to various positions, their domestic politics reporting has become decidedly pro-Tory.
There's variation for sure. I don't mind a lean, we're all human. I'd say they are mostly leftish, with a scatter of those on the right. I can adjust for that. They're one of the most trustworthy news sources on the planet, IMHO. Them and The Economist, but maybe I'm the one with a lean in that case although on a slightly different axis from the usual political left/right.
Have you not heard of the Guardian?
It's a lone voice, and has its own biases.
We have, but it's kind of a lone voice in terms of the mainstream, which makes it stand out and look vaguely ridiculous at times. The I / Independent was slightly more middle of the road I thought (about 10 years ago) but it might have changed. One problem of course is that young-middle aged people barely read newspapers.
>there are barely any popular news media that aren't owned or operated by Tory-friendly interests
Correct! In Canada, "Postmedia" fills this role. They own essentially all of the important papers in Canada, and are 66% owned by an American hedge fund (Chatham Asset Management), and 22% owned by an American billionaire noted for his successful insider trading (Leon Cooperman). [0] Postmedia felt that their papers needed to be more "reliably conservative", and so in 2018 appointed a dude who'd just successfully fought off a unionization drive, Kevin Libin, to take charge of all their papers' political reporting and analysis, to ensure they'd be more friendly to the poor shivering right wing.
Their only meaningful competition, ideologically, was the Toronto Star as owned by Torstar, a corporation deployed in 1958 after the province of Ontario decided that charities couldn't operate newspapers. The Toronto Star, once a relatively left-wing voice known for its investigative journalism, was controlled by the families of the original charity trustees, but in 2020 it was sold to a private investment firm!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmedia_Network
[1] https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/08/27/opinion/postmedi...
Correct! In Canada, "Postmedia" fills this role. They own essentially all of the important papers in Canada, and are 66% owned by an American hedge fund (Chatham Asset Management), and 22% owned by an American billionaire noted for his successful insider trading (Leon Cooperman). [0] Postmedia felt that their papers needed to be more "reliably conservative", and so in 2018 appointed a dude who'd just successfully fought off a unionization drive, Kevin Libin, to take charge of all their papers' political reporting and analysis, to ensure they'd be more friendly to the poor shivering right wing.
Their only meaningful competition, ideologically, was the Toronto Star as owned by Torstar, a corporation deployed in 1958 after the province of Ontario decided that charities couldn't operate newspapers. The Toronto Star, once a relatively left-wing voice known for its investigative journalism, was controlled by the families of the original charity trustees, but in 2020 it was sold to a private investment firm!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmedia_Network
[1] https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/08/27/opinion/postmedi...
Not that it's any consolation, but it's definitely not a flaw unique to Britain. I think this is just increasingly the universal norm in our society. Mainstream news in the US is, as I'm sure you know, also pretty much entirely slanted one way or the other and appealing to emotion. Headlines that make value judgments, the choice in what to emphasize and what to ignore, etc. And I say mainstream news like the alternative media is any better, but it doesn't seem that way to me.
World news always seems very refreshing to me in this regard: BBC World, Al Jazeera, Reuters. But yes, national and local news just seems to be a cesspool in many places and spreading.
World news always seems very refreshing to me in this regard: BBC World, Al Jazeera, Reuters. But yes, national and local news just seems to be a cesspool in many places and spreading.
"World news" is more often slanted by what is reported rather than how.
BBC world news seems to focus quite a lot on Russia, for instance, maybe in response to RT's focus on UK.
Al jazeera also cant be trusted on anything involving qatar, assuming it even reports the story.
BBC world news seems to focus quite a lot on Russia, for instance, maybe in response to RT's focus on UK.
Al jazeera also cant be trusted on anything involving qatar, assuming it even reports the story.
That's fair, but I will say that my experience with cable news is that every time I see it, not only does it feel extremely manipulative and emotion-based, but it's like, "oh - we're all still obsessing over this one court case instead of literally anything else that happened yesterday". Every time I look at world news, it seems to at least be covering a much greater variety of things that don't seem so predictable and click-baity and that do seem like they're actually of consequence to a larger selection of the population.
edit: Some of this unavoidable - you have to make judgments on what to cover and what makes the front page, and you're never going to eliminate people's biases or agendas completely. Not that it makes that acceptable, but I don't read World News and feel like the whole institution is beyond recovery and worthless. Cable news in the US? Yeah - I do feel that way.
edit: Some of this unavoidable - you have to make judgments on what to cover and what makes the front page, and you're never going to eliminate people's biases or agendas completely. Not that it makes that acceptable, but I don't read World News and feel like the whole institution is beyond recovery and worthless. Cable news in the US? Yeah - I do feel that way.
I think your takes on BBC World News and Al Jazeera don't really count for much unless they're based on analysis of the full content of these organizations. I listen to a moderate amount of BBC World News, and I've almost never heard Russia come up. However, my listening habits barely cover 10% of their output. Maybe you just happen to tune into some subsection that does indeed focus on Russia, which seems entirely possible.
Today's Russia story seems to be https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59299101
It's a bit lower down the front page than usual.
IIRC yesterday their top story had a bit about putin being accused of orchestrating the migrant crisis in belarus.
There's almost always something every day. Often they're not really very newsworthy which made me think that there might be a quota or something.
Other times it's registering an official US/UK disapproval of something they did as above.
It's a bit lower down the front page than usual.
IIRC yesterday their top story had a bit about putin being accused of orchestrating the migrant crisis in belarus.
There's almost always something every day. Often they're not really very newsworthy which made me think that there might be a quota or something.
Other times it's registering an official US/UK disapproval of something they did as above.
I'm not sure this is what you're making it out to be. Russia is one of nine countries that have nuclear weapons, and has one of the two largest stockpiles. For a "world news" site, does it not make sense to focus on this major power which is also geographically close to the UK?
The thing that first made me start to wonder was seeing a few somewhat obscure domestic issues like something about a Russian instagrammer I think, maybe a feminist writer or something hit the 4th slot. This was the 4th most important story in the world that day? Because... they have nukes?
I could understand if the stories were all internationally relevant but they're often oddly specific Russian domestic news (e.g. like https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58315926).
RT seems to do a similar thing. I remember walking around London one day and seeing a lot of protestors, although I couldn't make out their signs. I learned what was up from /r/london (they were antivaxxers). The BBC reported on it but buried the story while RT had it prominently displayed at like #4 on their world news page / #1 on their UK news page.
I could understand if the stories were all internationally relevant but they're often oddly specific Russian domestic news (e.g. like https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58315926).
RT seems to do a similar thing. I remember walking around London one day and seeing a lot of protestors, although I couldn't make out their signs. I learned what was up from /r/london (they were antivaxxers). The BBC reported on it but buried the story while RT had it prominently displayed at like #4 on their world news page / #1 on their UK news page.
As I understand it, the general concensus is that the newspapers in the UK are ghastly in much the same way as TV news is in the US. Whereas TV news in the UK, isn’t nearly as horrendous as the US.
I presume this is partly because Tory supporters are more likely to watch the news on the television, listen to the radio or read dead tree newspapers so they kind of have to pander to them.
For similar reasons, most political comedians seem to be left-leaning.
For similar reasons, most political comedians seem to be left-leaning.
It's called a 'sleaze' because the media decided to call it that.
And the 'media' is pro-Tory all the way ( even to some ridiculous degree ), then the other media just run with it because it's mostly copy & paste.
As far as survival goes, Bozo Johnson is a top performer. He only talks to the media he vets, that's why the UK is something like a mix of Truman Show with a sprinkle of 1930's Germany.
And the 'media' is pro-Tory all the way ( even to some ridiculous degree ), then the other media just run with it because it's mostly copy & paste.
As far as survival goes, Bozo Johnson is a top performer. He only talks to the media he vets, that's why the UK is something like a mix of Truman Show with a sprinkle of 1930's Germany.
It is quite instructive that the press have managed to damage the Tories' poll rating simply by pulling up the publicly-available list of MP registered interests and reporting them as the scandal they are and always were.
Why didn't they do this at any point in the past 10+ years? Because the press are owned and operated by the Tory party (sometimes once-removed, sometimes not) and understand that their primary function is to distribute pro-Tory propaganda.
So why are they doing it now? Because a) the opposition has been thoroughly defanged after the wholesale demolition of the left-wing Corbyn project and b) a lot of top Conservatives do not like Johnson because he makes them embarrassed at dinner parties, and would prefer someone like Gove. In other words, it's a Barclay twins vs Murdoch ruling-class squabble.
Why didn't they do this at any point in the past 10+ years? Because the press are owned and operated by the Tory party (sometimes once-removed, sometimes not) and understand that their primary function is to distribute pro-Tory propaganda.
So why are they doing it now? Because a) the opposition has been thoroughly defanged after the wholesale demolition of the left-wing Corbyn project and b) a lot of top Conservatives do not like Johnson because he makes them embarrassed at dinner parties, and would prefer someone like Gove. In other words, it's a Barclay twins vs Murdoch ruling-class squabble.
> Why didn't they do this at any point in the past 10+ years? Because the press are owned and operated by the Tory party (sometimes once-removed, sometimes not) and understand that their primary function is to distribute pro-Tory propaganda.
Maybe I'm just too cynical but I think if you're the media you need to shake down your favourites from time to time, even if you do prefer them over the opposition. If you can make a storm, you can make it blow over as well.
Maybe I'm just too cynical but I think if you're the media you need to shake down your favourites from time to time, even if you do prefer them over the opposition. If you can make a storm, you can make it blow over as well.
This comment is absolutely bang on, but leaves out one minor detail - this digging was done by openDemocracy who have been doing this constantly over the last 10 years. The fact that the print press also picked it up eventually is entirely down to your point (b). You can always tell when the tories are tired of their current leader because the rest of the party starts briefing the press with damaging stories.
AIUI the term first became common in the mid-1990s; Labour at the time were in opposition, and I have read Labour were very fond of using the term because it was wider and easier to apply to any even slightly-murky thing a Tory MP had got involved in, whereas if you claim that thing to be "corruption" then a chunk of voters will feel you're over-exaggerating and won't be so likely to go along with your argument.
Right. As an example from the other side, just this morning I read a Private Eye article (it's from last month, I am busy at work, I have a backlog) about a Labour MP who happens to be renting a London flat whose actual owners are hiding behind a series of offshore entities presumably to both dodge taxation and hide their identities. Officially Labour is staunchly against such things, but rather than help uncover what exactly is going on with her flat of course she, and Labour itself, threatened to sue any journalist who mentioned the matter... That is what sleaze looks like. We've got no proof there's any wrongdoing here, much less anything illegal but that sure would be easier to believe if they didn't threaten to sue people who report what they do know...
A lot of the Tory stuff is plainly corruption, but expect Tory papers in particular to soft pedal it. They don't want to get called out for not reporting a huge story, but they needn't emphasise how bad it really is.
A lot of the Tory stuff is plainly corruption, but expect Tory papers in particular to soft pedal it. They don't want to get called out for not reporting a huge story, but they needn't emphasise how bad it really is.
You can also apply "sleaze" more broadly - which despite being less precise, may let you represent the facts more accurately.
Senior politician cheats on his fiancée with a former stripper? Not corruption. But definitely sleaze.
That same senior politician gives £25,000 of taxpayer money to the former stripper - but giving 'business development' grants is within his power? Arguably corruption. But definitely sleaze.
Senior politician cheats on his fiancée with a former stripper? Not corruption. But definitely sleaze.
That same senior politician gives £25,000 of taxpayer money to the former stripper - but giving 'business development' grants is within his power? Arguably corruption. But definitely sleaze.
I wonder if it's also to do with slander/libel laws. Saying something is sleazy is more subjective than saying it's corrupt.
* The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country
* The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country
* Financial Times is read by people who own the country
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country
* The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
(The Sun readers do not care who runs the country as long she's got big tits!)
* The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country
* The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country
* The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country
* Financial Times is read by people who own the country
* The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country
* The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
(The Sun readers do not care who runs the country as long she's got big tits!)
Credit where credit is due... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M
And the absolute best part of that clip, on a rewatch, is seeing all three of them trying not to corpse.
Yes, minister ... every time I feel down, I watch a couple of episodes ... restarts my day.
Full Credit where credit is actually due:
http://www.dirtyfeed.org/2021/04/what-the-papers-say/
http://www.dirtyfeed.org/2021/04/what-the-papers-say/
That is faintly astonishing. Not the facts, but the effort...
Some people really care. And one of the groups most apt to care are journalists, who also in this case are likely to have heard this joke before Yes, Minister did it. So when people credit Yes, Minister that's annoying for them. But, to properly correct someone about a fact you know they have wrong you must first determine more exactly what the facts are.
Also the "big tits" version of the joke is clearly funnier and it's on the way interesting to watch people embrace this or be uncomfortable with it. I expect with Page 3 in practice consigned to history we'll go back to uncomfortable. By now there are probably a considerable number of Sun readers today who aren't aware the Sun used to feature topless model shots every day with essentially no excuse beyond people like looking at tits.
Also the "big tits" version of the joke is clearly funnier and it's on the way interesting to watch people embrace this or be uncomfortable with it. I expect with Page 3 in practice consigned to history we'll go back to uncomfortable. By now there are probably a considerable number of Sun readers today who aren't aware the Sun used to feature topless model shots every day with essentially no excuse beyond people like looking at tits.
“Yes, Minister”, and it’s spiritual successor “The Thick of It” are incredible shows.
From "Yes, Prime Minister": https://vimeo.com/110662596
>>And the 'media' is pro-Tory all the way
Except for the Daily Mirror, the Guardian and the BBC.
Except for the Daily Mirror, the Guardian and the BBC.
BBC is pro whoever is in government at the time. Laura Kuenssberg thrown softballs to Johnson enough times to prove this.
Left or right is misdirection in 2021. The biggest issue right now is Coronavirus, and on this the entirety of the MSM obediently spout the same pro-pharma line virtually without question.
Political parties are mostly in alignment on that as well. It's not like Labour is anti-vax or anti-big pharma.
That's kind of the point - there is no difference between the two parties. The whole thing is theatre, the leaders actors, and the system is intentionally designed to prevent choice. Look at Brexit - the people were never supposed to vote Leave, and the blob did it's damndest to prevent the will of the people being heard.
The apparent acquiescence of so many in the face of encroaching tyranny is the most frightening thing I've ever seen in my life. The vaccines don't work properly ('my vaccine only works if you're vaccinated too!'), the long term effects are unknown (despite their claims of safety for which they simply have no long term evidence), it is all obviously being used as a precursor to a social credit system, there is no evidence that masking the public works, the WHO etc. in an act worth of Orwell changed the actual definition of vaccine and herd immunity (nothing fishy there eh!) to suit their interests, the UK intentionally recorded any death within 28 days of a test (including being run over by a bus!) as a COVID death etc. etc. etc.... The whole thing stinks, and I won't be silent.
Any downvoters please respond with evidence to refute me. Bet you can't.
The apparent acquiescence of so many in the face of encroaching tyranny is the most frightening thing I've ever seen in my life. The vaccines don't work properly ('my vaccine only works if you're vaccinated too!'), the long term effects are unknown (despite their claims of safety for which they simply have no long term evidence), it is all obviously being used as a precursor to a social credit system, there is no evidence that masking the public works, the WHO etc. in an act worth of Orwell changed the actual definition of vaccine and herd immunity (nothing fishy there eh!) to suit their interests, the UK intentionally recorded any death within 28 days of a test (including being run over by a bus!) as a COVID death etc. etc. etc.... The whole thing stinks, and I won't be silent.
Any downvoters please respond with evidence to refute me. Bet you can't.
I've been double vaxxed, but I'm not unsympathetic to some of your arguments.
I have this in my reading list: "A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic "
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08ZSYN14J
I have this in my reading list: "A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic "
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08ZSYN14J
Probably because to use the term "corruption" in the media/press is quite a direct accusation and potentially will be challenged as libel (rightly or wrongly).
"Sleaze" is less tangible and probably harder to challenge, but carries similar weight. I think sleaze also covers non-corruption activities too - general face-saving in light of embarrassing-but-legal things like quirky sexual activities, substance misuse (where legal), questionable (not not "bad") moral decisions, questionable (but not illegal) business decisions etc etc
"Sleaze" is less tangible and probably harder to challenge, but carries similar weight. I think sleaze also covers non-corruption activities too - general face-saving in light of embarrassing-but-legal things like quirky sexual activities, substance misuse (where legal), questionable (not not "bad") moral decisions, questionable (but not illegal) business decisions etc etc
>Probably because to use the term "corruption" in the media/press is quite a direct accusation and potentially will be challenged as libel (rightly or wrongly).
It's sad that this is the only mention of libel so far in the thread. UK libel laws are some of the easiest to get damages through; look at how many times Private Eye has been taken to court. MPs can use the corruption word easily due to parliamentary privilege, the media however don't have that privilege.
It's sad that this is the only mention of libel so far in the thread. UK libel laws are some of the easiest to get damages through; look at how many times Private Eye has been taken to court. MPs can use the corruption word easily due to parliamentary privilege, the media however don't have that privilege.
I am surprised that this article gotten any up votes. I once commented "if it was a country like Iran we would have called it terrorism" on an post that effectively said "country X did y" my account was banned on here due to down votes and reports.
In my mind this post is saying a similar thing.
We have different labels for when we do Vs when someone else does it.
It's another one of those pirate vs privateer, freedom fighter vs terrorist things.
Though, having said that, and agreeing with almost everything they said, I hope the response is "here's some global principles and standards to stop this everywhere" rather than, "as long as we're not much worse than the hypocritical British we can carry on".
Graft, sleaze and corruption can have a disastrous impact on a society. More and better democracy is a good start I feel.
It is a tricky problem and a constant fight though.
Though, having said that, and agreeing with almost everything they said, I hope the response is "here's some global principles and standards to stop this everywhere" rather than, "as long as we're not much worse than the hypocritical British we can carry on".
Graft, sleaze and corruption can have a disastrous impact on a society. More and better democracy is a good start I feel.
It is a tricky problem and a constant fight though.
Administration vs regime
A running joke with my friends, is that as one of the oldest democracies in the world, we've had longer to figure out how to hide the corruption of our politicians, and also to inure the population to it.
One key difference in the UK is that it is at least, less intentional corruption and more a case of 'what can I get away with?', just like stealing a pen from your employer and taking it home. The UK MP equivalent is employing your spouse as office manager (when you don't really have an office), and paying a full salary, or claiming absurd travel expenses, or a second "home" in London close to Westminster.
It seems though, that over the last 20-30 years, "corruption" with UK politicians has gotten worse. Perhaps that's just because of the Internet making it easier to report it.
Amongst many recent ones, I always remember this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Anderson_(politician)#Arre...
mostly because of former Liverpool Mayor, Joe Anderson's typically British nickname. Oh, and giving building contracts to your friends. Tut tut.
One key difference in the UK is that it is at least, less intentional corruption and more a case of 'what can I get away with?', just like stealing a pen from your employer and taking it home. The UK MP equivalent is employing your spouse as office manager (when you don't really have an office), and paying a full salary, or claiming absurd travel expenses, or a second "home" in London close to Westminster.
It seems though, that over the last 20-30 years, "corruption" with UK politicians has gotten worse. Perhaps that's just because of the Internet making it easier to report it.
Amongst many recent ones, I always remember this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Anderson_(politician)#Arre...
mostly because of former Liverpool Mayor, Joe Anderson's typically British nickname. Oh, and giving building contracts to your friends. Tut tut.
It's a bit rich for al-jazeera to point a finger at corruption.
Corruption of course happens everywhere, but the difference between British MPs and some other 'oil-rich nations' is several zeros.
Corruption of course happens everywhere, but the difference between British MPs and some other 'oil-rich nations' is several zeros.
There is a fairly tasteless joke whose punch line is something like "We've determined what sort of woman you are, now we're haggling over the price" that seems relevant here.
that bit got a chuckle from me, but this:
> ..., which is plagued by tribal separatist movements in the regions of Scotland and Northern Ireland, ...
really got me :P
> ..., which is plagued by tribal separatist movements in the regions of Scotland and Northern Ireland, ...
really got me :P
> According to a report published by the National Audit Office, just over 1 percent of COVID-19 contracts worth $24bn awarded to suppliers between March and July last year, were awarded using a competitive process.
So when death rates were rising exponentially and the world was trying to make sense of covid, it's a bad thing that regulatory red tape was cut? I personally would like to see a crackdown of corruption in UK politics, but this seems like a really weak argument.
So when death rates were rising exponentially and the world was trying to make sense of covid, it's a bad thing that regulatory red tape was cut? I personally would like to see a crackdown of corruption in UK politics, but this seems like a really weak argument.
There's cutting red tape, and then there's making sure the landlord of your local boozer gets a piece of the action.
The problem is more who they were awarded to rather than the process. Having a “VIP lane” for friends, family, and donors is about as corrupt as it gets.
The issue at hand is that the UK government (or at least some people within it) seems to have been happy to use this as a pretext for awarding huge procurement contracts to personal friends and donors without any oversight or transparency as to how these descisions were made. See for instance this politico story from today: https://www.politico.eu/article/conservative-uk-ppe-contract...
The really obvious answer to this (and I'm not defending the corruption, the tory party and their continuous boys-club mentality is sickening) is that when you live in the country, you know enough to know that corruption is happening but isn't everything. Whereas the UK public often only hear about Africa when they're hearing about corruption.
It's also worth noting that whilst there's corruption in the UK, we all really know that it doesn't amount to the full capture of states like Russia.
It's also worth noting that whilst there's corruption in the UK, we all really know that it doesn't amount to the full capture of states like Russia.
Ironically, most of Russian money is in London. And whenever a high profile person from Russia needs to leave the country, whether a friend or enemy of Putin, he tends to surface living in UK. An interesting coincidence.
It's not a coincidence, London property is a great place for money laundering because of all the UK tax havens like BVI. If you want to launder money, one of the safest bets is a london property owned by a company in the british virgin islands.
Getting closer to that every day though.
A delightful take from a non-Western newsmonger, using the language the West uses when analyzing corrupt far-flung lands. I don't imagine it'll be received well.
OTOH, who could oppose it? When the British sleaze-machine can Photoshop damning pictures of opposing politicians supporting terrorism and the press raises an barely-there protest, who fucking cares? "Consequences"? From whom? It's open season!
OTOH, who could oppose it? When the British sleaze-machine can Photoshop damning pictures of opposing politicians supporting terrorism and the press raises an barely-there protest, who fucking cares? "Consequences"? From whom? It's open season!
You may appreciate this, which does similar:
https://youtu.be/9pnt_uT5YzQ
https://youtu.be/9pnt_uT5YzQ
Hah yes! See also Motel of the Mysteries, for a kids' book take on an excavated motel in a far-flung future, or Body Ritual Among The Nacirema [0] for the anthropologically-minded dental hygiene enthusiast.
[0] https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Miner-1956-BodyRitualAmongTheNacir...
[0] https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/Miner-1956-BodyRitualAmongTheNacir...
> A delightful take from a non-Western newsmonger, using the language the West uses when analyzing corrupt far-flung lands
Author has a vast megathread on Twitter using similar language: https://twitter.com/gathara/status/1351038226581118986
"Winter storm batters huge swathe of covid-ravaged, politically troubled US, as it struggles to emerge from deadly coup amid dire humanitarian crisis that has killed nearly 500,000 and left one in seven households, including 18 million children, without enough to eat."
Author has a vast megathread on Twitter using similar language: https://twitter.com/gathara/status/1351038226581118986
"Winter storm batters huge swathe of covid-ravaged, politically troubled US, as it struggles to emerge from deadly coup amid dire humanitarian crisis that has killed nearly 500,000 and left one in seven households, including 18 million children, without enough to eat."
The joke is obviously on the author. Nobody in so called far-flung lands would have confused the January 6 riots for an attempted coup. And the US press would never have used language like that for such a riot, which featured so little weaponry and organization (up against the global military superpower). Putin has been protested against many times, the US press doesn't call the protests attempted coup attempts. People in far-flung nations can tell the difference between a riot - where, for example, the rioters were recorded on video being intentionally let into the government building in question - and an actual coup attempt. It's only domestically where a small group of politically motivated people are so wildly irrational or ignorant that they don't know the difference.
Government corruption in the US (compared to China) was discussed very recently on Freakonomics podcast [0]. It’s an interesting listen for anyone that is interested in the different types of corruption, the different names of corruption, and the different effects it can have.
[0] Episode 481 11/3/21 https://freakonomics.com/archive/
[0] Episode 481 11/3/21 https://freakonomics.com/archive/
Yes the mass media are spineless Aljazeera is one of the worst, pointing at the rest of mass media like they are any different.
The direction Aljazeera is biased in is quite unique. That makes them meaningfully different, and quite valuable.
Black People "Loot;" White People "Find"
https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/mass-incarceration/b...
https://web.archive.org/web/20101030015416/http://www.deigla...
If you don't like someone you amplify the bad (or make it up entirely). If you do like someone you minimise the bad (or deny it entirely). You know, if you don't care about truth or fairness or any of that shit.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-justice/mass-incarceration/b...
https://web.archive.org/web/20101030015416/http://www.deigla...
If you don't like someone you amplify the bad (or make it up entirely). If you do like someone you minimise the bad (or deny it entirely). You know, if you don't care about truth or fairness or any of that shit.
[deleted]
From what I can tell, this isn't worse than the US. Our news orgs compulsively ignore that (most?) federal laws are a response to major campaign donations.
[deleted]
Not sure what "ethnically divided" is refering to? It was the part which I found most puzzling.
Just to show this phrase in context:
> It is not the first time the public in the ethnically divided country, which is plagued by tribal separatist movements in the regions of Scotland and Northern Ireland, is being fleeced by its politicians
So I think this is parodying the way the UK (and the "developed" world in general) often talk about current events in South and Central America or Africa - being very dismissive, usually boiling complex conflicts down to simple tribalism and painting the country in broad, inaccurate strokes.
I suppose you could maaaybe talk about Scots, English, Irish and Welsh as separate "ethnicities" but as someone who identifies as one of those, I would describe them as "nationalities". That is based purely on gut-feel though, maybe I'm just squeamish about drawing hard lines and bringing potentially charged terms like "ethnicity" into some discussions.
> It is not the first time the public in the ethnically divided country, which is plagued by tribal separatist movements in the regions of Scotland and Northern Ireland, is being fleeced by its politicians
So I think this is parodying the way the UK (and the "developed" world in general) often talk about current events in South and Central America or Africa - being very dismissive, usually boiling complex conflicts down to simple tribalism and painting the country in broad, inaccurate strokes.
I suppose you could maaaybe talk about Scots, English, Irish and Welsh as separate "ethnicities" but as someone who identifies as one of those, I would describe them as "nationalities". That is based purely on gut-feel though, maybe I'm just squeamish about drawing hard lines and bringing potentially charged terms like "ethnicity" into some discussions.
The violent suppression of minority languages and religions would count as "ethnic cleansing" in a 21st century perspective, but the UK (and for that matter France etc) did it before it became really unpopular. The use of the Irish language is still a bit of a flashpoint in NI.
I guess you’re right, come to think of it things like Highland Clearances might be thought of the same way. But about “ethnicity” I just think that right now if you walked up to people in the street in Edinburgh, London, Cardiff or Befast asking about their ethnicity I reckon you’re more likely to get a mix of skin colour or religion or something than nationality as a response. And it would be fuzzy and mixed enough that you wouldn’t be able to point out the various ethnic lines if this were somehow plotted on a map.
So ethnically diverse? Definitely. Ethnically divided? Eh I’m not so sure.
So ethnically diverse? Definitely. Ethnically divided? Eh I’m not so sure.
> bringing potentially charged terms like "ethnicity" into some discussions.
But as you say, I think this is the point of the article isn't it? People in the west are squeamish about using those terms in their own backyard but are often much less squeamish about using those terms when talking about places far away.
But as you say, I think this is the point of the article isn't it? People in the west are squeamish about using those terms in their own backyard but are often much less squeamish about using those terms when talking about places far away.
I believe this part was what that pertained to:
> tribal separatist movements in the regions of Scotland and Northern Ireland
> tribal separatist movements in the regions of Scotland and Northern Ireland
Ah, thanks, I see. But they are already separate countries, not regions. It's a state divided into countries already, which in itself recognises that ethnic diversity.
Depends a bit how you define country. Scotland wasn't able to stay in the EU for example. A country would be able to do that, I think.
It's borrowing the language typically used in the media to describe Middle Eastern ethnic conflicts to a European ethnic conflict. The same way it describes the U.K. as an "Oil Rich Kingdom" (which it is, of course).
Plenty of federal and quasi-federal countries have tensions between their constituent states, and separatist movements. The UK isn't a proper federal system, of course, but much the same principle applies.
Administratively, Scotland is less of a country than, say, the British Virgin Islands. While it has a Parliament and separate legal system the list of independent competences is much smaller.
>It is not the first time the public in the ethnically divided country, which is plagued by tribal separatist movements in the regions of Scotland and Northern Ireland
What's unclear? Yesteryear's elites drew lines on maps dividing or trapping people who don't look or think like them, and today's elites, sitting in distant enclaves, expect economic productivity and quiet passivity from their thralls. Now those people want self-determination!
Am I talking about Kurds or the Scottish?
What's unclear? Yesteryear's elites drew lines on maps dividing or trapping people who don't look or think like them, and today's elites, sitting in distant enclaves, expect economic productivity and quiet passivity from their thralls. Now those people want self-determination!
Am I talking about Kurds or the Scottish?
I know we Scots on the whole are probably a little more attractive than our friends down South but "people who don't look like them" is perhaps a little too much a stretch here? :-)
It's an oversimplification, but to an otherwise uninterested African observer, everyone in the UK probably looks and sounds alike. How can they express such vehemence over such small differences?! Savages!!
I think thats the point the article is an oversimplification to the point of absurdity
The Scots have never voted for the government that has been elected for most of the last 50 year. Boris Johnson is such a corrupt buffoon that the independence movement doesn't have to lift a finger to bolster support.
I am with you (particularly re Boris) but didn't we overwhelmingly vote Labour in '97. I suppose arguably that was partly due to the promise of getting a devolved parliament
The point was that for all intents and purposes the ruling elite (who would have been responsible for drawing said lines) would be in appearance virtually indistinguishable[0] from their subjects living in any of the component parts of the UK. You're in agreement, basically :)
[0] - other than the bit about us being much handsomer in Scotland, of course ;-)
[0] - other than the bit about us being much handsomer in Scotland, of course ;-)
[deleted]
Ahh, not so! I've been in contact with my hypothetical African colonialist-scientist, and after reading about the successes of Belgian phrenology in the 30s he's suggested that hypothetical African science might best isolate the "Scottish" from "British" via examination of tooth decay!!
While decades of Irn Bru consumption and a diet rich in Highland Toffee has caused no end of dental problems, I'll have you know my remaining tooth is in fine condition.
I'm sorry to say that the hypothetical African colonialist-scientist has examined your dental records and pronounced you British :(
Maybe he can be convinced by a tap water sample?
Maybe he can be convinced by a tap water sample?
I reluctantly accept my assigned ethnicity, though I reserve the right to be very bitter and over-use the cry-laugh emoji sarcastically on social media … hey maybe I am British after all :-)
[deleted]
How about "people who don't sound like them"?
> people who don't look or think like them
Thats unfair the Scottish aren't that ugly.
Thats unfair the Scottish aren't that ugly.
Exactly, the Scottish don't look like the English!
:P
:P
Imagine the US was arming and funding the Kurdish in Syria to oppose the Assad regime. But instead of the Kurds they're funding the Irish Protestants and instead of the Assad regime it was the United Kingdom and instead of the US, it was... no wait, still the US. That's the context of the "ethnically divided".
Some US representatives were funding the Irish Catholic side in the troubles. I wonder where all those Armalite rifles came from.
(The explosives meanwhile came from Libya; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57488196 it is ludicrous to sue post-Ghadaffi Libya about it, though)
(The explosives meanwhile came from Libya; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57488196 it is ludicrous to sue post-Ghadaffi Libya about it, though)
[deleted]
The Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English have clearly defined ethnicities. You can tell them apart just by their reaction to Oasis's "Wonderwall".
But at the same time indistinguishable by their reaction to Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline".
The UK is four countries sellotaped together (hence the 'U' bit). Maybe more, depending on how you feel about Cornwall. This has often caused trouble, and two of them may plausibly leave in the next decade or so.
There is an interesting question about the modern Tory party. If they are the party of capitalism then which capitalist interests do they represent? You might answer British but Britain has lost a very large number of its 'national champions'; they have either gone completely or are owned by multinationals. Think of ICI, the City, the motor industry. Think of Arm in the tech sector.
Nature abhors a vacuum and into that vacuum has rushed a new class of capitalists who, often unfettered by governance constraints at publicly traded companies, seem prepared to indulge in the 'sleazy' practices we see here.
Which is not to excuse what we are seeing. Just to highlight how much the Tory party has changed.
David Edgerton is really good on this.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/11/how-britain-wa...
Nature abhors a vacuum and into that vacuum has rushed a new class of capitalists who, often unfettered by governance constraints at publicly traded companies, seem prepared to indulge in the 'sleazy' practices we see here.
Which is not to excuse what we are seeing. Just to highlight how much the Tory party has changed.
David Edgerton is really good on this.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2019/11/how-britain-wa...
I think Keir Starmer (leader of the opposition) is responsible for the popularity of the term "sleaze"? He chose the wording for PMQs.
The huge number of Google News results for 'Boris Johnson Sleaze' across multiple mainstream media outlets suggests that it is being called exactly what it is.
https://www.google.com/search?q=boris+johnson+sleaze&source=...
https://www.google.com/search?q=boris+johnson+sleaze&source=...
The point of the article is that its being called sleaze when at least some of it should be called corruption.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index