Is it better to have a corrupt politician than an ineffective one?

[pingu2209]

As the title says really!

At low level, local politics, such as Parish Council level, would you rather a corrupt and experienced cllr or an ineffective one that means well?

An innefective one that means well. Corrupt councillers are the ones that (among other things) enlarge the rich/poor divide.

(I need to work on my sentence structure-that doesn't sound right but I'm not sure why)

Ineffective, for sure. The ineffective one might manage to pull off some good if the intention is there. A corrupt one is completely untrustworthy.

No it's not better to have a corrupt politician than an ineffective one. A corrupt one is ineffective also, from the perspective of their constituents.

I often wonder though... politicians, social workers, police officers, etc., what lofty ideals they must have had at the start of their careers and how dismal it is that the 'ideal' is seemingly something so unattainable. It is the quashers of the 'ideal' that are more corrupt than anybody else, in my view.

Ineffective every time. A corrupt politician will steal from you, there is no doubt.

Do you know for certain that one is corrupt and the other is ineffective?

Depends what you're hoping to achieve.

You can give a corrupt politician a bung and get it done but you stand no chance of getting an ineffective one to deliver.

Ideals are one thing but 'lofty ideals' can be the sign of a pretentious prat an over-inflated ego LyingWitchInTheWardrobe.

When you're dealing with politicians it's wise to use a long spoon, and the selection of trainees for social work, teaching, the police force and any other profession which has the power to make crucial and/or life-changing decisions affecting others should be based on aptitude and ability rather than quotas.