Indeed. It has been heavily covered in Private Eye, as well. Labour is deeply in hock to the gambling industry. So much for "gambling is the curse of the working class".
Funny how you can buy British politicians for dirt cheap. In India or the US, it would take at least $100k-200k to get a single politician's attention at the bare minimum, while in the UK you can influence party positions for 25k quid.
In India one doesn’t just bribe a politician, one hires an expensive lawyer who “handles” the case.
The real bribery starts at the bottom of the pyramid.
Say you want a water connection. The rate is set on the size of the property, and each layer in the pyramid knows exactly how many square feet were approved and what their individual percentage will be.
And again, you can’t just bribe the fellow directly: you need to go through a trusted agent who acts as a cut-out between the briber and the bribed. This started after the Lok Ayukta started conducting raids. Who says our babus aren’t flexible and innovative?
How much do you estimate it would take to get a politician to flip their view on abortion, gun control, illegal immigration, health care? Seems like if it were "quite low" you'd see politicians flipping views all the time as one side or the other channelled money to them.
What we actually see is a lot of stasis, refusal to compromise, and politicians locked in with their party, which suggests it is pretty hard to influence politicians.
Where money is effective is using it to get politicians who agree with your view elected.
"Buying a politician to vote in a certain way" is not really how it works most of the time. It's more "buying time with a politician so you can give the best possible explanation for your case without any counter-argument". Turns out, that is surprisingly effective, especially when there isn't really an organised counter-movement with similar funds to get politicians ears.
Those are all hot-button issues that can make someone lose their seat. Unless you have enough money that they never have to work again, not going to happen. Almost nobody outside of HN notices the DMCA, but it’s there.
You don’t buy politicians to change their views on the circus items.
The only reason all those “issues” are issues is because they’re intended to distract the public from the actual stuff politicians are being bought for. Transferring wealth to their buyers.
80% of the politicians on both sides of the spectrum have the same beliefs about all those issues.
It'll be much harder to get a politician to flip on an issue that voters care about but much easier to get them to vote one way on an obscure regulation that most voters have never heard of.
Don't you need to donate at least $100k to influence senators or influence party positions in the US? Sure, you could "buy" a politician for cheaper, but you're not guaranteeing they will toe your line.
India is ridiculously expensive - bribes often amount to 50 lakh rupees to 1 crore + rupees, which amounts to roughly $50k-100k per politician. Not to mention bribery at the lower rungs of the ladder where everyone from the politician's toilet janitor all the way to the politician's chief of staff will demand their pound of flesh, usually in the tune of tens of lakhs of rupees (~$10k).
That's not a good thing.
From what I understand,
a lot of "cheaper" bribes in India
are for things that the government employees must do as a part of their jobs
so like a bribe for these government employees to do their job basically which still filters up to the highest levels of government.
Why would you agree to stick your neck out for something illegal on the cheap when you can wring the ordinary people to do your job?
All this is based on second hand information so please correct me where I am wrong. Also probably things are different in different parts of the country?
I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing - bribery is bad, full stop. I wanted to draw a comparison between how expensive it is in India vs the UK, which means that a relatively smaller pool of individuals can actually afford to bribe in India vs the UK, which makes projects more concentrated in the hands of a few (which is still a lot in a bit country like India).
On the other hand, I was a member of the Treasury group and the Leaders group of the Tory party until recently, with just a "paltry" donation of £50k, which got me the ear of a sitting PM and regular meetings with the Chancellor. Good luck trying to get that kind of access in India or the US with the PM.
The cheaper bribes were a tangent, but just to show that doing business in India is actually more expensive than in the UK (where there are no such bribes).
US politians are routinely bought for numbers similar to the UK ones.
They will often vote in a way that their constituents do not want for ~10k in campaign contributions.
They didn't have to worry about the voters finding out about it (this is changing with alternative media) beacuse the same people bought ads on the major networks.
This is an interesting observation. Why do you think it is so much lower in UK Vs US? My guess: There are much less private donations in the national UK political system.
US congressional districts being an order of magnitude larger than UK constituencies probably has something to do with it. Also, there are significantly more MPs than representatives, so you have to swing more legislators to your side in the UK vs the US to get your pet policies adopted.
But you can get a seat at the table for negotiations if the Tories are in power and you're a part of the Leaders group or the Treasury group of donors. All for £50k.
Leaders group puts you in touch with the Tory party leader (who is often the PM if the Tories are in power). Treasury group invites you to meetings with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/28/tory...