Rolling onto number 3 of my radical changes we could make to UK law and politics.
This one follows directly from the previous point: for fair penalties and fair taxation to work, a person’s wealth must be knowable.

Now, rather than using the old “if you’ve nothing to hide…” argument, I think the more accurate framing is this:

If it is a legal obligation to report information to the state, and if the state ultimately works on behalf of the public, then information gathered for public purposes should be public.

Put another way:
If we all share this information, we can ensure everyone pays their fair share — and that may even mean some people currently paying their fair share would actually pay less.

Public and Private Secrecy

This leads to a broader issue in the UK:
the extraordinarily high level of secrecy in public life.

This has recently hit the headlines due to a political party receiving donations from overseas, raising concerns about foreign influence. Unsurprisingly, I’m far from the first person to raise this point — but I’m happy to add my voice to the growing choir.

My starting belief is simple:

Information connected to legal obligations or publicly-funded actions should be public.

Or in a more easily understandable way

If you were part of a village where everyone contributed to maintaining the roads and community buildings, you’d expect to see who paid what.

Democracy is just a much larger version of that village.

From this principle follow a number of reforms.

Where Secrecy Should End

1. End NDAs in Public Life

NDAs should not apply to anything funded by taxpayers or connected to political office.
The only appropriate exceptions are:

Unreleased corporate investment or R&D
Temporary commercial confidentiality before product launch

Once a product is on the market, research relating to safety should be public anyway.

Intellectual property protections already exist through the IPO — NDAs should not be used to suppress public accountability.

2. Make Tax Records Public (As Some Countries Already Do)

Paying tax is a legal obligation.
Therefore, tax submissions — at least high-level summaries — should be available for public scrutiny.

This isn’t a radical idea. Several countries do this already:

Countries Where Tax Records Are Public

Norway – Income and tax paid have been public since the 1800s. You can look up records, though the person is notified.
Sweden – Public since 1903; accessible via “tax calendars.”
Finland – Tax and income information published annually; newspapers often print top earners.
France – Some taxpayer details are published at commune level.
Pakistan – The state publishes lists of individuals and companies and how much tax they pay.
Philippines – Top 500 taxpayers list published annually.

These public-record systems are based on cultural norms of trust, fairness, and equality — not voyeurism.

Countries Where Tax Records Are Private

Most countries — including the UK, US, Germany, and Canada — treat this information as confidential.
However:

Many publish lists of major tax fraudsters and evaders.
Multinational corporate tax transparency is increasing via EU public Country-by-Country reporting rules.

If France can find a GDPR-compliant way to disclose data, so can we.

Why This Matters in the UK

We could introduce limited transparency as an anti–benefit fraud measure, while the real benefit would be drastically reducing tax evasion, money laundering, and dark-money political influence.

My previous analysis of the UK tax system showed that 88% of households receive a net lifetime benefit from their taxes. This suggests our current “break even point” may need adjusting downward — not upward.

My general view is:

Secrecy is not a friend of democracy.

It is the breeding ground of backroom deals, ‘donation-based lobbying’, and decisions lubricated by private money.

And these practices overwhelmingly disadvantage the poor while protecting the wealthy.

Examples of Secrecy tied to Real UK Failures

Ok so to support my suggestion – can I point you at –

The PPE Procurement Scandals

During the pandemic, the UK managed to demonstrate exactly what happens when public money is spent behind closed doors. We created a system where companies with political connections — but often no relevant experience — were handed multi-million-pound contracts for PPE.

Some supplied equipment that couldn’t be used.
Some made enormous profits for work they were barely equipped to do.
And some simply got the contract because they were in the right WhatsApp group.

This wasn’t just incompetence; it was a transparency failure.

Had the award process been open, competitive, and scrutinised — instead of relying on a “fast lane for friends” — we would have saved money, reduced fraud, and, crucially, protected more frontline staff.

It was a textbook example of why secrecy in public procurement leads to waste and corruption.

If daylight had been shone on the process, the rot would have been visible from day one.

Lets have a look at how MUCH we’re talking about, the UK government spent around £13 billion on PPE in a frantic scramble. Fair enough — speed mattered. But what happened next was a masterclass in secrecy, incompetence, and political favouritism.

Out of that £13 billion, somewhere between £4 and £7 billion has now been acknowledged as waste, roughly 30-50%:

PPE that failed safety tests
Masks with the wrong ear loops
Medical gowns without proper certification
Hundreds of millions paid for equipment that never turned up
Warehouses full of boxes that will never be used
And hundreds of millions more simply to store the rubbish before we eventually pay again to burn it

The now-infamous VIP lanes, err what I hear you say? — Alongside the PPE fiasco sat the now-infamous VIP lanes — a lovely little euphemism for “one rule for the public, another for ministers’ mates.”

Being placed in the VIP lane increased a company’s chances of getting a contract by dozens of times compared with ordinary applicants. Many were referred by MPs, Lords, donors, or their political networks.

One of the most galling parts is how brazen it was. The government didn’t even try to defend it on merit; they simply repeated that it was “efficient.” Efficient — but only if you were well-connected.

Hold on Hold on – one minute – what exactly does efficient mean? Ok not exactly a dictionary definition but here we go –

A process that achieves a desired outcome with minimal waste — though in UK political usage, often a polite way of saying speed was prioritised over transparency, accountability, or competence.

For everyone else it was an opaque black box, and a reminder that in the UK, access often determines outcomes far more than competence or value for money.

VIP lanes weren’t just a bad idea; they were a warning flare that our systems lack the safeguards to prevent cronyism becoming standard practice .where politically connected companies were fast-tracked for contracts — handled about £4 billion in orders.

A large proportion of the worst failures came through this lane.

In total, the scandal likely cost us between £6 and £10 billion, depending on whether you include:

overpricing due to lack of competition
undelivered goods
legal settlements
disposal costs

The government’s own auditors (the NAO) have quietly admitted that the PPE procurement effort will remain one of the single largest write-offs in UK public spending history.

This wasn’t just a mistake.

It wasn’t bad luck.

It was a system designed to operate in the shadows — and when you build a system that rewards secrecy and personal connections, you get exactly this kind of outcome.

“When ministers called the VIP lane ‘efficient’, they were technically correct — it efficiently moved billions out of the Treasury and into the hands of the well-connected.”

Undisclosed Lobbying Meetings

Then we have the ongoing saga of ministers, advisers, and ex-ministers holding “informal discussions” with lobbyists in hotels, private clubs, WhatsApp groups, and even over text message — without ever recording them on the official lobbying register.

This isn’t a few stray incidents.

It’s a pattern.

Every year we hear about yet another minister having a “quiet conversation” with a corporate representative about contracts, policy, or regulatory changes, somehow forgetting to log it.

The UK’s lobbying system depends almost entirely on voluntary disclosure, and shockingly, voluntary disclosure works about as well as you’d expect.

The result is that we have no clear picture of:

who is lobbying whom,
what is being asked for,
which policies are being influenced, and
what donations or paid roles sit in the background.

When ministers hold “informal” meetings with lobbyists — over dinner, in private clubs, in WhatsApp groups, or simply “between friends” — the cost isn’t just moral or democratic. It is painfully financial.

Based on what we do know from the meetings that eventually leaked into public view, the UK loses somewhere between £1.5bn and £4bn every single year from decisions shaped in private conversations that never make it into ministerial diaries.

You see it in procurement — where quiet introductions lead to overpriced contracts.
You see it in tax policy — where a single discreet meeting can cost the Treasury hundreds of millions over a decade.
You see it in regulation — delayed rules, softened enforcement, exemptions carved out for the well-connected.

Add in the indirect damage — weaker competition, distorted markets, and a public that increasingly feels the game is rigged — and the real figure probably sits closer to £4bn–£8bn every year.

Undisclosed lobbying isn’t a harmless coffee chat.
It is one of the most expensive habits in Westminster.

Again, transparency would fix it overnight.

If ministers knew their diaries would be public, many meetings simply wouldn’t happen — and the rest would be above-boardish – there will always be those who try to play the system.

Overseas Donations Linked to Political Access

Another area where secrecy has thrived is in the murky channel between foreign money and British political influence.

Despite laws banning foreign donations, we’ve seen loopholes repeatedly exploited:

Wealthy overseas individuals donating through UK companies with no real commercial activity.
Individuals receiving honours or access after making large contributions.
Fundraisers where the “price of admission” seemingly correlates with proximity to ministers.

Even if nothing explicitly illegal occurs, the perception of influence-for-money corrodes trust.

Democracy cannot function if citizens believe policy decisions are shaped in private dining rooms by the people with the deepest pockets — some of whom might not even live in the UK.

Transparency about donations, beneficial ownership, and political access is not a luxury. It’s the bare minimum needed to prevent our politics being auctioned to the highest bidder.

When people talk about “overseas political donations,” the mistake is thinking the danger is simply the money changing hands. The real financial impact comes from how that money quietly shapes policy, delays reforms, and carves out exemptions that benefit foreign interests at the expense of British taxpayers.

The best estimates suggest that foreign-linked donations — whether through shell companies, intermediaries, wealthy individuals with opaque financial histories, or those curiously well-timed “philanthropic contributions” — cost the UK somewhere between £1.6 and £3.3 billion every single year.

How?

Because every time a transparency reform is delayed, billions in illicit or semi-illicit funds wash through London unchecked.
Every time enforcement is softened after a discreet dinner, the Treasury loses the tax it could have recovered.
Every time political access is granted in exchange for a contribution, procurement decisions, regulation, or financial policy tilt just a little further away from the public interest.

Over a decade, the total cost is in the region of £20–£50 billion — all because secrecy creates a zone where foreign money can lubricate influence, silence criticism, and steer policy in ways that the public never voted for and is not permitted to scrutinise.

And the tragedy is this: we are one of the few countries that knowingly allowed this to happen while proudly calling ourselves “the world’s leading democracy.”

Suppression of the Russia Report’s Recommendations

And finally, the Russia Report — the clearest example in recent years of the government deliberately choosing secrecy over national interest.

The Intelligence and Security Committee investigated Russian interference in UK politics and elections. The report was completed. It was ready for publication. And then…

nothing.

Delays. Excuses.
A slow-motion stonewalling exercise that lasted months.

When the report was eventually released, large chunks were redacted — but the message was still clear:

the UK had not even bothered to assess the extent of Russian interference.

The report also made recommendations to strengthen transparency around donations, online influence campaigns, and political financing.

Most of those recommendations still sit gathering dust.

If transparency threatens national security, I understand caution.
But if secrecy threatens democracy, then transparency becomes essential.

When corruption inquiries are suppressed — delayed, narrowed, underfunded, or politely asked to “wait until after the election” — the damage is not theoretical. It is financial, and it is vast.

Based on what we know from the investigations that did escape into daylight, the UK loses somewhere between £4.3 and £7.2 billion every single year simply because fraud, political influence, and illicit finance are not properly investigated when they involve people who are wealthy, connected, or embarrassing to the government of the day.

Every dropped procurement fraud inquiry costs us hundreds of millions in contracts that should never have been signed.
Every money-laundering investigation that gets quietly deprioritised keeps billions of dirty cash flowing through London.
Every overseas influence inquiry that sits ignored on a minister’s desk costs the Treasury tax that will never be recovered.
Every whistleblower who stays silent because they know nothing will happen allows fraud to grow unchecked.

Across the last decade the total cost sits somewhere between £43 and £72 billion — a number so large that it becomes abstract until you realise what it represents:

hospitals not built
schools not renovated
tax cuts not delivered
social care not funded
and thousands of public servants working with budgets crippled by fraud that should have been stopped

Suppressing corruption inquiries isn’t just undemocratic.

It is one of the most expensive decisions governments make — and they make it quietly, routinely, and with remarkable impunity.

Political Donations and Transparency

I built an interactive dashboard, as part of a training program funded by the West Midlands Combined Associated, analysing political donations and sponsorships in the UK. This is based of data available publically via existing laws.

As I don’t earn money from writing or analysis, it’s hosted on a free service — meaning it sometimes goes to sleep.

If you try to access it and it’s down, feel free to message me and I’ll re-awaken it.

Why be so Radical?

I know some people will say – whoa why not make little more acceptable suggestions such as –

Publishing income bands rather than precise salary figures.
Public disclosure only above a threshold (e.g., income > £150k).
Automatic publication of MP, donor, and senior civil-service tax summaries.
A searchable public donations and lobbying register with enforcement teeth.

Well what I will say is – err nice idea but it wont actually improve the situation

Suggestion 1 – Publishing income bands rather than precise salary figures. – and what does this achieve?… In reality nothing, it will just encourage those who wish to hide funds to max min their income – that is declare the minimum income to stay below the maximum penalty.

Suggestion 2 – Public disclosure only above a threshold (e.g., income > £150k).- nope this is not fairness, this is targetted discrimination. If I wish to propose ideas, and prove my ideas as fair and even, then they cannot target or single out any individuals or groups. The basis should be the same rule for all or no rule.

Suggestion 3 – Automatic publication of MP, donor, and senior civil-service tax summaries.- sorry this one falls into the same arguement at N0.2 , why just because you happen to be employed by the Government or donate to a political party should you have different laws applied to you.

Suggestion 4 – A searchable public donations and lobbying register with enforcement teeth – err.. yep actually I would like this as well not instead. This is what I would like the existing Electoral and Political regulators/ombusmen to be.

What would the benefit be, and what benefits have been seen else where?

When you look at the countries that already publish tax records — Norway, Sweden, Finland, and to a lesser extent France — the evidence is remarkably consistent:
tax evasion drops, inequality narrows, trust increases, and corruption gets harder.

In Norway, income misreporting fell by over 10%.
In Sweden, wage transparency helped close pay gaps.
In Finland, journalists use tax data to expose fraud before the government even gets to it.

Nothing catastrophic happened.

No wave of identity theft.

No collapse in investment.

Just a quieter, more honest society.

If the UK adopted the same model, we could realistically expect:

£4–£6 billion a year in reduced tax evasion
£1–£2 billion a year in reduced fraud and corruption
compressed wage gaps, especially for women and ethnic minorities
stronger trust in public finances
and far fewer “mysterious wealthy donors” whose official income doesn’t match their political influence

In total, somewhere between £5.8 and £9.5 billion a year would shift back toward the public purse.

That’s the beauty of transparency:

It doesn’t require new laws, new taxes, or new enforcement agencies.
It simply makes cheating harder, fairness visible, and public life a bit less murky.

Total Cost of UK Political Secrecy: £7.5–£14.5 billion per year

Using conservative, well-evidenced estimates, the combined system-wide cost lands in this range.

That’s:

£266–£514 per household per year, or
£233–£450 per taxpayer per year

Over ten years, every household pays:

£2,660–£5,140 simply to subsidise corruption, secrecy, and a political system allergic to daylight.

And the ironic part? There’s a proven fix.

When you look at countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland, and France — where tax records and political finances are public — something remarkable happens:

Tax evasion drops 10–12%
Fraud is exposed earlier
Inequality narrows
Public trust increases
Dark money dries up
Policy becomes harder to buy

If the UK adopted public tax transparency and modern financial disclosure:

£4–£6 billion in reduced tax evasion
£1–£2 billion in reduced fraud and corruption
£0.5–£1 billion in pay-gap corrections
£300–£500 million in administrative efficiency

Total annual gain: £5.8–£9.5 billion.

The Bottom Line

The UK does not have a “spending crisis.”

It has a secrecy crisis.

Billions leak out of the system every year because:

meetings aren’t recorded
donors aren’t transparent
inquiries aren’t published
contracts aren’t competed
political access is quietly traded
and the tax system operates behind a curtain

Transparency is not a left-wing idea, a right-wing idea, or a radical idea.
It is simply the cheapest, most effective anti-corruption tool ever invented.

And in a country struggling to fund basic services, the real question isn’t:

“Can we afford transparency?”

It’s:

“How much longer can we afford secrecy?”

Quick Catchup/Summation

So this is my third post of “radical” ideas.

Potentially we could be improving the UK economy by

So conservatively £5 – £10 Billion a year – ok not quite the £18 Billion promised by BREXIT but nearly 1/3 to 1/2 of the way there .. Just by getting people to pay what they should.

Discover more from Hysnaps Politics, Gaming, Music and Mental Health

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.