[pydry]

The self developed UK government online services tend to be pretty good (sometimes very good!). It's the stuff they outsource to government contractors whose CEOs play golf with government ministers that are universally terrible.

[tarkin2]

This "playing golf with government minister" should be called out for what it is: a probable or possible bribe. It won't be money in a brown paper bag but the result will be the same. It's endemic. We like to think bribery and corruption happens to other countries but there's plenty of it in the UK: it's just higher up the totem pole and largely accepted.

[mcdonje]

Same thing in the US. I always laugh whenever I see a list of corrupt countries and the US isn't near the top. Codifying bribery into law as lobbying and superpacs doesn't make it not bribery.

[marcosdumay]

That's because the US has a low amount of corruption on the positions that face the public.

It's also because most of those lists are ordered by a "perception index", that is the kind of bullshit that increases if your government does an awareness program and if corruption fighting gets on the news.

[mcdonje]

So, ironically, corruption reduction efforts can raise a country's rank on such lists.

[marcosdumay]

Exactly. Not only "can", but will on almost every case. Some times I wonder if it's on purpose.

[jrgaston]

Spot on: "Codifying bribery into law as lobbying and superpacs doesn't make it not bribery"

[signatoremo]

Ha, do you have any experience doing business with those countries top of the list to say so?

[wholinator2]

Agreed, though I've always had this thought: How do we know it's not money in a brown paper bag/briefcase. I mean, could they not transfer physical money as easily as they transfer words and secret deals. Golf courses are huge, golf carts can have large compartments and be loaded up directly from a car. I know the thought is, "well why would they do that, surely there's an easier alternative", but my point is that it's not would, it's could.

[toyg]

> How do we know it's not money in a brown paper bag/briefcase

One of the problems is that some of these checks can only be performed much later.

The most common currency of choice, for modern bribes, is the promise of a fat gig in the private sector when the political career ends. As the public demands younger and younger political classes, with lower and lower salaries, while maintaining an appetite for career-ending scandals and relatively short terms in office, it's inevitable that individuals will tend towards ensuring their future survival. Such promises need no paper trail, are trivial to keep, and are effectively invisible for years. When they're realized, it's typically too late to do anything about the original source of corruption, and the new guys in power have no incentive to cut that income source for them; in fact, they now know it works and are more likely to tap it for themselves.

[Sebb767]

> As the public demands younger and younger political classes, with lower and lower salaries

Looking into the US senate, I fail to see that trend. In the last presidential election, both candidates were older than my grandparents.

Even in my country, seeing a really young person in a political position is very rare. They exist (if you define "young" as under 40), but they are rare. I don't think age worries are a factor at all.

[mbg721]

In the US there's a huge disconnect between national and local political positions; the national politicians are largely 80 years old and have enough muscle from their party structure and the media to be essentially scandal-proof. The voters don't like that but can't really fix it; local politicians, who are younger, see the big-time corruption in Washington and assume that's how things get done, and all of a sudden you have things like a majority of Cincinnati city council being investigated by the FBI.

[Bud]

You're not paying attention to the salaries part, though.

Look at the pay for members of the House and Senate, in real dollars, over the last 50 years. Also pay attention to how much stupid noise there is about how members of Congress are supposedly overpaid. The pay for all US Senators combined (under $18M) is less than half of what LeBron James makes (over $41M) in salary alone in a year.

[b3morales]

That's not a very informative comparison. LeBron James is a outlier's outlier in a sector that already has exceptional pay. Senators' salaries would more usefully be compared to the (upper) middle-class white-collar workforce that they would most likely occupy if they weren't in office.

[spc476]

But until relatively recently (2018 perhaps?) Congress was legally allowed to profit with insider trading (probably due to Article I, section 6, paragraph 1 of the Constitution).

[toyg]

My outlook is European. In the US the political career is indeed longer, because there are effectively more levels (EU Parliament and Commission are still largely considered a step down from national-level politics, silly as it might sound). But the selectiveness (only two senators per state, often lasting decades) makes it similarly treacherous at the mid-level.

> They exist (if you define "young" as under 40)

In political terms, at the (European) national level, "young" is typically under 50, and "old" is over 70. Acquiring reputation and solid power base takes time.

Looking at the UK: Tony Blair was considered very young when he became PM at 44; Thatcher was 53, Major 57, Brown 56, and most of their predecessors were much older. Cameron was 43 but again May was 59 and Johnson 55. Backbenchers will typically enter Parliament around 35-40.

In Italy you can basically add 10 to all those numbers; the current PM (or PdCM, for the purists) is 73.

[fisherjeff]

Senators are old but many of their staffers are young, underpaid, and, through their job, well-connected to industry. Perfect recipe for a revolving door.

[truffdog]

Their staff- who do the research and write the laws- are almost entirely under 30 though.

[wholinator2]

And I guess my counterpoint is that could is a very very large potentially unusably large category of possible actions, and would is a much more tightly controlled set of realized actions we believe might happen again.

But then would has the potential of misdirection. Your believed set of would's might be entirely separate from the realized would's of the individual. Could is wider but has less room for interpretation or propagandizing. Exactly my point in the above post: why wouldn't they be able to transfer money. My set of would's include those deliberate obvious actions, especially if all kinds of other things happen on golf courses. Anyways, I'm rambling, have a nice day. :)