The UK and US have sunk to new lows in a global index of corruption, amid a “worrying trend” of democratic institutions being eroded by political donations, cash for access and state targeting of campaigners and journalists.
Experts and businesspeople rated 182 countries based on their perception of corruption levels in the public sector to compile a league table that was bookended by Denmark at the top with the lowest levels of corruption and South Sudan at the bottom.
The Corruption Perceptions Index, organised by the campaign group Transparency International, identified an overall global deterioration, as 31 countries improved their score, while 50 declined.
In particular, the report identified backsliding in established democracies, warning that events during Donald Trump’s presidency and the revelations contained in the Epstein files could fuel further deterioration.
Because we have both a spineless (see examples in my comment) and corrupt (see headline) government.
You didn’t say those things, but they are the setting for which your comment was made. Kier is spineless, you’re struggling to see why that’s bad.
I understand what you’re saying but I think you’re misinterpreting what I am asking.
I haven’t made an argument as to whether he is spinless or not. I am purely interested in why you think not having to pay a leader is a bad thing rather than a good thing.
That’s all I want to discuss. I’m not arguing for or against his actions. You’ve gone off on a tangent.
So why do you think not having to pay a leader is a bad thing? Because I personally would view that as a positive as they are not motivated by financial gain. From your point it sounds like a leader should demand to be paid a decent amount?
I don’t think I am.
Why do I think a spineless leader is a bad thing rather than a good thing? You’re struggling to see how having a spineless leader is a bad thing just as I asserted.
Which brings us back to my first comment and all the products of this government:
To be clear, their increasing of corruption is bad too. Which brings me, again, to my first comment:
I get it, you think he’s spineless and corrupt. That’s obvious.
My point is only why does it make a leader - any leader - that doesn’t accept payment for their duties spinless?
That’s what I’m interested in. Why you’re conflating the two. Why does not accepting a salary to be a political leader make someone spineless?
You don’t need to repeat that you think he’s spineless and corrupt. I get that. That’s up to you. I’m talking about the broader sense of any leader here.
I was hoping for a discussion around that topic, rather a repeat of of your views on Kier Starmer. You’ve made them clear. Thanks.
Cause and effect are reversed here. Spineless people do things regardless of payment.
Silly example, I see you’re a spineless person in the playground. I walk up to you and demand your lunch. You, being spineless, give it to me, no payment necessary. Not taking payment isn’t, in and of itself, a noble act.
Apply that to a position of leadership, apply that to politics. Apply that to his policies I listed. Do you now understand why I believe him being spineless to be a bad thing?
For example there’s a big bully in the playground called Trump, Trump took something from Venezuela, what was Starmer’s response? It was spineless is what it was.
Wait, are you effectively saying that Kier Starmer took the job of Prime Minister because he was too afraid to say “no”?
Surely it would take more of a spine to say “no” to the money being offered than to say nothing and accept it?
I’m sorry I’m not following your logic here at all. I still can’t see why refusing a salary makes someone spineless. I think the opposite is true.
I was just ignoring your attempt to goalpost shift.
Parent comment:
No mention of salary.
Your reply:
No mention of salary.
My reply:
No mention of salary. Your reply
No mention of salary, a bribe [see parent comment] is payment and corruption.
No mention of salary, eventually you shift the goal posts.
If you don’t want me repeating comments could you please read them? The original goalpost was having a corrupt leader over a simply spinless one, a false dichotomy. Now moving goal posts, be better.
Never mind. I can see a salary interpretation in this. Perhaps that’s what you were aiming for and I was wrong. If so I apologise and agree, his giving up a salary isn’t a spinless act. Bit of a nothingness in the face of his support of genocide though. But, I think the parent comment was making a double entendre of salary and bribe. Starmer is so spineless you don’t have to pay (salary/bribe) him.
I’ll leave having asserted Kier is spinless. Having shown some reasons for why I think he is spineless. And having justified why I think him being spineless is bad.
I’m not shifting anything!
Pay. His pay. Another way to describe that is his salary.
I see by pay you meant “taking a bribe”. You didn’t say that until just now. That’s where the confusion is coming from.
I’m not really appreciating the rudeness either. I can’t be arsed with this. Lets just leave it there.
Bruh, you might want to change your username to HamBrainedVegan - unless you’re just being intentionally obtuse…
What’s your point? Other than being insulting.
You guessed it one try, so I suppose you’re not quite as dim as expected.