Griftonomics: How British Politics Became a Playground for Personal Gain & Threatened Modern Democracy In The Process

From cash-for-peerages and crony contracts to reality television MPs and donor-fuelled honours lists, the UK’s political class faces a credibility crisis.

There has been a startling rise in grift culture in British politics, with a growing trend of politicians and their associates using public office for personal enrichment. We have seen a near-endless string of scandals involving misuse of public funds, conflicts of interest in contracts, and officials profiting from their privileged positions in recent years. It should therefore come as no surprise that polling shows public trust eroding rapidly, with over half of Britons believing that the government is institutionally corrupt, and the UK falling to the bottom of the international corruption index's top 20 countries. This has bred a broader culture of impunity and entitlement within British politics, transcending traditional forms of corruption or illegality, and instead manifesting in the transformation of politics from public service to private enrichment, in its many forms. This entrenchment of grift has very real social costs, and so far has culminated in a widespread disengagement from the political process, and a deep-seated belief that those in the most powerful political roles are there to serve themselves, rather than the country as a whole.

One hallmark of the UK’s grift culture has been cronyism, as best represented by the ‘cash for peerages’ revelations, which showed that every Conservative Party treasurer in the past seven years who donated at least £3 million to the party was offered a seat in the House of Lords. In total, 22 of the party’s biggest donors have been made peers in the past 11 years, donating a collective £54 million, with former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s use of patronage exemplifying this culture. Johnson sparked outrage with his 2022 resignation honours list, which included peerages and other honours for dozens of close aides and allies, even those entangled in scandals. The appointment of Richard Sharp as BBC Chairman in 2021 is a prime example of this political patronage, as Sharp was a major Conservative donor, and an independent inquiry found that he had breached public appointment rules by failing to disclose his involvement in arranging an £800,000 secret loan for Johnson while he was Prime Minister. This points very clearly to a blurred line between public service and personal favouritism at the highest levels, with this undisclosed conflict of interest clearly playing a significant role in decision making when filling positions.

The last few years have seen the more transactional facet of grift culture tending to dominate the headlines, with the pandemic procurement scandal revealing a long-suspected belief that government contracts are often awarded to the well-connected, rather than the most deserving. Yet another more malignant aspect of grift culture has been the rise of politicians engaging in work outside of their parliamentary role, in order to significantly enhance their income. Through second jobs, book deals, reality TV appearances, and well-compensated consulting roles, a growing number of MPs are leveraging their public roles in order to boost their earnings, often at the detriment of their public service.

Parliamentary rules in the UK have long allowed MPs to hold outside employment, but recent examples have shown how these can very quickly slide into exploitation of public roles for private gain. A prime example of this was former Health Secretary Matt Hancock, who in late 2022, while still a sitting MP, joined a reality television programme for which he was paid £320,000. To add insult to injury, he spent multiple weeks away from his constituency filming the series, and still continued to collect his MP salary. Unfortunately, this was also not an isolated incident, with many MPs and former ministers engaging in the same practices. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, while still an MP in 2023, earned nearly £5 million in speaking fees and advance payments for a US lecture tour and book deal, along with former Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries, who hosted a TV talk show while still an MP in early 2023. Beyond the clear conflict, when prioritising personal gain and media exposure over political responsibilities, this use of political office as a media launchpad sends the concerning message that a political career is no longer to serve, but can instead be a fast track to lucrative entertainment opportunities.

Perhaps even more corrosive was the case of long-standing Conservative MP Owen Paterson, who was found to be lobbying officials on behalf of paying clients, leading to a formal recommendation for suspension. Paterson was found in 2021 to have secretly lobbied on behalf of two companies that were paying him over £100,000 per year, with an investigation finding that he had repeatedly used his parliamentary position to influence officials. This was a clear-cut example of essentially an MP being caught taking money to peddle private interests, all but validating the public’s concerns that elected officials might place a premium on personal enrichment over genuine representation of public issues.

Sadly, this culture of self-enrichment and gain is not isolated to a specific political affiliation and is systemic within the current British political system. In the last year, the Labour Party, despite often critiquing Conservative MPs for similar conduct, has recently weathered its own array of accusations relating to financial misconduct and ethical lapses. Major donors, influential peers, and notable MPs have been drawn into disputes over whether financial support buys political influence, and how thoroughly interests are disclosed. Labour peer Waheed Alli has been at the centre of a major controversy involving gifts to party leaders, culminating in tens of thousands of pounds worth of benefits to Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his cabinet. This generous support for the party, totalling over £500,000 donated since 2020, has raised very real questions over the potential for undue influence on party policy, especially when considered alongside Alli’s temporary Downing Street pass after Labour’s election win.

Further controversy within the Labour party surfaced when an MP failed to declare sponsorship for events linked to an overseas government, even while tabling questions related to that foreign power in Parliament. An investigation into Navendu Mishra, the Labour MP for Stockport, revealed that Mishra failed to declare sponsored support from Indian organisations, despite submitting 14 written parliamentary questions on UK–India relations since September 2023, without disclosing that he had received funded trips and donations linked to Indian entities. This resulted in anti-corruption watchdogs arguing that the incident underscores the risks of foreign-sponsored hospitality and raises questions about impartiality when MPs accept all-expenses-paid trips from foreign organisations.

Sadly, allegations of grift culture are not confined to Westminster, with instances of questionable contracting and governance at local levels. One of the most striking local-level cases has been the long-running Liverpool City Council corruption probe, which culminated in criminal charges against senior figures, after a police investigation into the alleged rigging of council contracts and misuse of public office between 2010 and 2020. Former Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson subsequently appeared in court to face bribery and misconduct charges, with prosecutors accusing the ex-mayor of participating in a pay-to-play culture in which property development deals were awarded improperly. Another instance of the potential for local government grift culture stemmed from the Tees Valley freeport redevelopment, which saw two private developers with reported political connections obtain a 90% stake in the publicly funded Teesworks project for a nominal sum. Following a government-commissioned independent review, it was found that, despite no evidence of outright corruption, there was a lack of transparency and accountability in the deal-making process. As a consequence, even though criminality wasn’t proven, these governance gaps had the potential to enable grift, with a public asset being partly privatised behind closed doors.

This combination of high-profile scandals surrounding appointments, procurement, second jobs, and corruption has eroded public trust in British politics, culminating in a disillusioned electorate that is ambivalent about the electoral process. When wrongdoing is exposed at all levels of government and transcends partisan boundaries, it is understandable that the general public, having seen countless instances of those in political offices exploiting public trust, would feel that the system is broken beyond repair. Over the years, parliamentary committees and independent bodies have proposed overhauling the rules governing ministerial conduct and the awarding of government contracts. There have also been calls for a ban on second jobs, tougher regulation of political donations, and the introduction of stronger criminal penalties for wrongdoing. These may, of course, be a step in the right direction, however individual reforms are often piecemeal, and without a broader legislative push, the pattern of selective rule changes might simply open space for misconduct in other areas.

The UK’s long-held reputation for integrity in public service has suffered in the face of these scandals, creating an environment in which complacency and self-enrichment overshadow the principle of serving constituents and putting the national interest ahead of personal gain. This issue demands not just structural fixes but a reinvigoration of the modern political culture. When grift is normalised, public cynicism becomes hard to reverse, and competent, honest governance risks becoming the exception rather than the rule. In Britain, public confidence has undoubtedly faltered, and as a country we must now decide whether to reverse the years of decline in governance standards and political integrity, or to instead allow the continued propagation of griftonomics and its subsequently corrosive impact on the fabric of modern democracy.