THREAD: There is only one issue, in truth, here and I have been writing about it for over a decade. Since Andrew Lansley declared a donation from someone associated to a private healthcare co, WHILE he was Health Secretary. The issue is the notion of "above board". 1/
Politicians, of all ilks and at all levels, are meant to register ourside interests. The purpose of doing so is to make public any potential conflicts. This system, however, has been subverted by the idea that registering an interest somehow magically resolves any conflict. 2/
IT. DOES. NOT.
Politicians in a position to make or influence decisions should not be taking money from ANY entity, in a way that may or even APPEAR to compromise them. An obligation to declare would ensure this didn't happen. 3/
Politicians in a position to make or influence decisions should not be taking money from ANY entity, in a way that may or even APPEAR to compromise them. An obligation to declare would ensure this didn't happen. 3/
But at a time of crumbling convention, the register actually works the opposite way. It works as a SHIELD for outrageous behaviour. Because it's all "above board". By declaring a bribe - and most of them ARE BRIBES - you actually sanitise it; launder it. 4/
In my view, the registering of interests must be pro- not re-active. A cross-party committee needs to look at every potential registration BEFORE money changes hands and positively approve it or prohibit it. You'd be surprised what a difference being accountable makes. 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
