and working toward something like a wealth cap.

I don't think a wealth cap is necessary. Rather, we should look to US pre-Reagon - there was a 95% tax for earnings over $1 million, and Reagan said "If I get taxed 95% on my earnings for my next movie, I'm not going to make that movie. Then everyone else making that movie will be out of a job!" Nevermind the fact that, if they didn't have to pay him, the movie would have had far more money and been free to make something else. The workers would have had a job, the marketing may have been less effective but the overall commercial enterprise would be by and large unaffected.

Instead, we've got backhand deals. A common scandal story in the UK is an MP being paid a few £10,000s or maybe £100,000 - small fry compared to the US and their Super PAC's. However, the way the Tories have things set up is that there are 60 or so MP's who are on the party's payroll. All you have to do to write law in your favour is engage with one of them and donate to the party. The party will write a law, the whips will follow suit (just like they collectively voted against feeding children over Christmas during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic) and then the party will pay the MP that negotiated it a healthy bonus. Money is literally laundered through the party.

And the worst part is the Labour party have no plans on changing this. They just want their bite at the pie. The Tories stretch the standard for what MP's can get away with, Labour comes in and draws a line, then the Tories come back in and stretch it again.

Sack the fucking lot of them. We don't need "representatives" to go to Westminster and facetiously "vote on our behalf" anymore. A direct democracy, certainly once it's established, would be better than this.