FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Does lobbying undermine sovereignty?
Does lobbying undermine sovereignty?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 33 weeks ago
|
Genuine question, I'm totally unaware of the nuances.
In my bones I feel it's wrong to access government through "charitable donations". There's a clear conflict of interest surely?
Any other professional body can't (or strongly shouldn't) receive donations.
Is lobbying undermining impartial governance? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 33 weeks ago
Brighton |
On the one hand, yes. If a person/organisation/sector can exert influence over our democratically elected government, then it means their interests can be promoted/pursued above others.
However, how else would interests be raised and debated and awareness and understanding of topics be increased if those close to the topics did not undertake their lobbying activity?
One argument might be that there should be limits on the financial support given to any political party or individual MP? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On the one hand, yes. If a person/organisation/sector can exert influence over our democratically elected government, then it means their interests can be promoted/pursued above others.
However, how else would interests be raised and debated and awareness and understanding of topics be increased if those close to the topics did not undertake their lobbying activity?
One argument might be that there should be limits on the financial support given to any political party or individual MP?"
Could there be a system where all 'donations' are outlawed and each party gets a set amount from Govt to undertake their activities?
Say a certain amount per member or something, I know that's open to abuse but just throwing out a thought. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 33 weeks ago
Brighton |
"On the one hand, yes. If a person/organisation/sector can exert influence over our democratically elected government, then it means their interests can be promoted/pursued above others.
However, how else would interests be raised and debated and awareness and understanding of topics be increased if those close to the topics did not undertake their lobbying activity?
One argument might be that there should be limits on the financial support given to any political party or individual MP?
Could there be a system where all 'donations' are outlawed and each party gets a set amount from Govt to undertake their activities?
Say a certain amount per member or something, I know that's open to abuse but just throwing out a thought. "
There could and I imagine there are various ways that could be set up.
Generally speaking (not always the case) we see the Tories getting a lot of support from big corporations with deep pockets so they are better funded than Labour who tend (generally again) to rely on unions and membership.
I think there should be a cap on what each party is allowed to spend. I believe such a cap exists in the USA for presidential electioneering? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The Israeli Lobby concerns me.
Any MP can receive a minimum of £30,000pa.
For that they receive media training.
I suspect that they are also rewarded when they use said media training.
It’s worth saying that the guy organising these payments is “ex” mossad.
Explains a lot doesn’t it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 33 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
Lobbying is beneficial and has its place in a democracy.
However, professional lobbyists are a problem, they use their networks for payment for those wanting access above and beyond what is afforded to you and I. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Genuine question, I'm totally unaware of the nuances.
In my bones I feel it's wrong to access government through "charitable donations". There's a clear conflict of interest surely?
Any other professional body can't (or strongly shouldn't) receive donations.
Is lobbying undermining impartial governance?"
This is how the system is. Political parties work for those who donate the most.
An easy example.
Liz Truss received campaign donations from BP, and from pro-fracking & anti-science groups. Within days of being come PM, overturns fracking ban.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think businesses raising their interests is fine. The problem is with monetary contributions which make it a matter of who has the most money has the most power.
In general, western democracies are a power struggle between between politicians and businesses. In the US, businesses have more power. In Europe, politicians have more power.
We definitely should find the right balance. Not sure how. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"On the one hand, yes. If a person/organisation/sector can exert influence over our democratically elected government, then it means their interests can be promoted/pursued above others.
However, how else would interests be raised and debated and awareness and understanding of topics be increased if those close to the topics did not undertake their lobbying activity?
One argument might be that there should be limits on the financial support given to any political party or individual MP?
Could there be a system where all 'donations' are outlawed and each party gets a set amount from Govt to undertake their activities?
Say a certain amount per member or something, I know that's open to abuse but just throwing out a thought.
There could and I imagine there are various ways that could be set up.
Generally speaking (not always the case) we see the Tories getting a lot of support from big corporations with deep pockets so they are better funded than Labour who tend (generally again) to rely on unions and membership.
I think there should be a cap on what each party is allowed to spend. I believe such a cap exists in the USA for presidential electioneering?"
There was a cap on Brexit campaigning, which the leave campaign went over, of course there were zero consequences for this breach.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/vote-leave-broke-campaign-spending-rules-says-electoral-commission-11425636
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 32 weeks ago
|
To be fair you need to be able to understand what a sovereign is. There is a lot of talk of sovereignty in media yet nothing happens without the explicit consent of the monarch. Even when in the EU any law passed by the EU had to be signed off by the sovereign. Our own parliament swears an oath of loyalty to the monarch, not to the people.
As for lobbying, all that is is essentially competing lords and barons vying to get their agendas addressed. Feudalism never really went away. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To be fair you need to be able to understand what a sovereign is. There is a lot of talk of sovereignty in media yet nothing happens without the explicit consent of the monarch. Even when in the EU any law passed by the EU had to be signed off by the sovereign. Our own parliament swears an oath of loyalty to the monarch, not to the people.
As for lobbying, all that is is essentially competing lords and barons vying to get their agendas addressed. Feudalism never really went away."
You're confusing 'sovereignty' and 'sovereign'. They are different words, with different meanings. It's perfectly possible for a country to have sovereignty without having a sovereign. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
