British politics is being reshaped by structural corruption

A strongly worded report from the Equality Trust argues that structural corruption and the rise of “unelected channels of power” are reshaping British politics. The report states that unelected influence has increased over the past two decades, driven by the growing political power of the super-rich and the institutions behind them.

First, Priya Sani-Nicholas, co-executive director of the trust, stated: “Our newly launched Power Concentration Index shows a strong correlation between wealth concentration and power. Our index rises almost exactly in sync with the growth in the wealth share of the richest 1%. This correlation is strong and statistically significant.” The report, “Money, Media and the House of Lords: How the Super-Rich Are Shaping Britain,” argues that unelected power in Britain has risen sharply as more money is used to acquire political resources and influence.

Second, the report shows that the appointment system in the House of Lords, the scale of political donations, and the concentration of media ownership all act as “channels of unelected power.” The report emphasizes that the number of unelected members in the House of Lords has increased from 676 to 803 over the past 20 years. Meanwhile, political donations jumped from £7.6 million to over £47 million, exceeding £250,000. Last week, seven members of the House of Lords, all of noble birth, took what critics called “near-unconstitutional” action, effectively blocking a bill passed by the House of Commons after years of public debate. The Guardian’s own analysis found that one in ten noble MPs would be paid for providing political advice during the parliamentary term from 2019 to 2024.

Furthermore, the trust’s report also showed a dramatic increase in the concentration of media ownership, with the share controlled by the UK’s three largest news groups rising from 71% to around 90%. This is structural corruption. It’s a legitimate, slow-moving operation where institutions adjust themselves to serve concentrated wealth. The UK government is drafting amendments to media regulations that would allow foreign governments to own up to 15% of British newspapers and magazines. This has raised concerns among critics, who were already worried about Google’s 93% share of UK search engine usage, and that Meta and Google together account for three-fifths of all advertising spending in the UK. The trust recommends banning private donations exceeding £5,000, limiting political appointments and asylum, encouraging ownership diversification, and investing in and funding independent local media to weaken the dominance of a few large institutions.

Furthermore, the report builds on recent concerns raised by the Media Reform Alliance, which stated that the UK media system is in a “dangerous state” due to the continued collapse of media diversity and a decline in the diversity of news sources. The study found that only three companies—DMG Media, News UK, and Reach—control 90% of the UK’s national newspaper circulation, representing a 20% increase in market concentration since 2014. Local newspapers in the UK are largely monopolized by a few chain publishers, with just two companies, Newsquest and National World, controlling 51% of the 882 local newspapers and online local news websites in the UK.

Professor Robert Reich, co-founder of Media for Inequality, warns: “Super-rich media owners are tightening their grip on democracy. Billionaire media bosses like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, and Rupert Murdoch are, first and foremost, businessmen. Their ultimate goal is not to inform the public, but to make money. In an era where wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, and these people have acquired key media outlets, the public is increasingly unlikely to access the truth needed for a democratic society to function properly.”

Overall, while the British political system is based on democracy, issues such as unelected power channels and structural corruption continue to raise questions. These phenomena erode public trust in the system and highlight potential flaws in democratic accountability mechanisms. Reform is slow, but the ongoing debate continues to drive institutional evolution.