Countries’ drop in scores in annual table comes amid ‘worrying trend’ of backsliding in established democracies

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.

  • Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    31·
    12 hours ago

    I was just ignoring your attempt to goalpost shift.

    Parent comment:

    The country with a leader who accepts any and all bribes + the country with a leader so spineless that you don’t even need to pay him? Who’da thought?

    No mention of salary.

    Your reply:

    Sorry but what do you mean by this? I’m struggling to see how this is bad. Would you rather a leader took all the money they could get their hands on? Because that’s how you end up with Trump.

    No mention of salary.

    My reply:

    You’re struggling to see how Starmer’s support of genocide is bad? You’re struggling to see how Starmer’s capitulation to the right is bad? You’re struggling to see how Starmer’s ‘island of strangers’ speech is bad? You’re struggling to see how Starmer’s refusal to stand up for trans rights is bad? You’re struggling to see how Starmer’s appointing of Mandleson is bad? You’re struggling to see how the UK sinking to new lows in the global corruption index is bad? You’re struggling to see… Should’ve gone to Specsavers.

    But to answer your false dichotomy. We dont need to chose between a spineless government or a government that “took all the money they could get their hands on”. We can choose a government that is neither spineless or corrupt.

    No mention of salary. Your reply

    I didn’t say any of that. I’m simply asking why not having to pay someone is a negative? Or makes them spineless?

    No mention of salary, a bribe [see parent comment] is payment and corruption.

    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.

    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.

    • HamFistedVegan@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      11 hours ago

      I’m not shifting anything!

      No mention of salary.

      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.

      • Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        3·
        11 hours ago

        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.

        • HamFistedVegan@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          11 hours ago

          Fair enough. It’s just crossed wires. Thanks for understanding. For what it’s worth I don’t think you’re wrong in many of your points on Starmer. I’m hopeful he’ll improve before he gets the chop but I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t.