David Cameron admitted today that “secret corporate lobbying, like the expenses scandal, goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics.”
The Conservative Party must now pledge to support the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists, as recommended by the influential Public Administration Select Committee (PASC), chaired by Tony Wright MP.
In a speech this morning, Cameron said of lobbying: “It’s an issue that crosses party lines and has tainted our politics for too long...an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money. I’m talking about lobbying – and we all know how it works."
Now we know the extent to which MPs are facilitating access to the House of Commons facilities for commercial lobbyists, thanks to information from the Commons banqueting office being made public.
Among those consultant lobbying firms out to impress their clients – almost treating the Commons as a private dinning room - are Edelman, which hosted seven functions in 18 months; Lexington Communications – two lunches, a tea and a dinner in 2005-06; and Political Intelligence, which notched up eleven dinners and receptions in just two years. Three of these were hosted by former Lib Dem MP Richard Allan, who stood down in 2005 before becoming a lobbyist for Political Intelligence’s one-time client, Cisco.
We often feel like government doesn't listen enough to us, and listens too much to paid lobbyists working for business. Whether it’s IT companies lobbying for the introduction of ID cards, private healthcare firms wanting a piece of the NHS, arms companies pushing for government to spend more money on defence, or the aviation industry lobbying for airport expansion. We should know who is influencing government decisions.
At the moment, we've no right to know what these lobbyists are up to. But, we have a chance right now to stop this secrecy.
Power2010 is a new campaign where you get to push for political reform. New rules for lobbyists is just one idea out of a long list of proposed reforms – the top 5 most popular ideas, as voted for by you, will become part of a major campaign in the run up to the general election. If we make it into the top 5, there’s a strong chance that lobbying transparency rules can become government policy.
So, vote now for new rules to open up lobbying to public scrutiny – and let’s see who the government is really listening to.
British Medical Journal, Published 20 January 2010
Lobby Watch
When it comes to alcohol awareness, is the government underthe influence of the drinks industry?
The stated aim of the Portman Group is to promote social responsibilityin the alcohol industry, with a particular focus on responsiblemarketing. Established in 1989, it claims to "show leadershipon best practice in the area of alcohol responsibility" andto "foster a balanced understanding of alcohol-related issues."12
Its former chief executive, Jean Coussins, rejected any suggestionthat the group "represent[s] the industry" or acts as a "tradeassociation or lobby group."3 However, the evidence of its involvementin research and policy consultations indicates that it is notindependent of the industry and that it lobbies on behalf ofthe industry.
Industry documents reveal the truth about alcohol advertising
BMJ Press Release, 21/01/2010
Although the content of alcohol advertisements in the UK is restricted, an analysis of previously unseen industry documents published on bmj.com today, finds that advertisers are still managing to appeal to young people and promote drinking.
Professor Gerard Hastings and colleagues show that companies are “pushing the boundaries” of the advertising code of practice and warn that the UK system of self regulatory controls for alcohol advertising is failing.
Hastings and his team analysed a sample of internal marketing documents from four alcohol producers and their communications agencies. The documents were made available as part of the House of Commons Health Committee alcohol inquiry and included client briefs, media schedules, advertising budgets, and market research reports.
There is a widespread feeling in Britain that Prime Minister Tony Blair was, to say the least, economical with the truth in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, in particular, that he expressed a certainty about Iraq’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction” that was unwarranted by the intelligence evidence available to him at the time.
However, the story of how in the 12 months prior to the invasion he engineered the UK’s participation in a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime is not widely known, even though the basic facts have been in the public domain for many years.
Nicholas Jones, 12 January 2010 Despite denying repeatedly that he played a ‘sexing up game’ when working on the government’s much-criticised dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Alastair Campbell acknowledged in his evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry (12.1.2010) that his role had been unprecedented.
Never before had a party political spin doctor chaired meetings of Britain's intelligence chiefs nor had a Downing Street press secretary previously had access to secret intelligence information which he did not require to see on a 'need to know' basis.
One morning in February, two investigators from the Information Commissioner’s Office knocked on the door of The Consulting Association based discreetly off an alley in Droitwich, West Midlands.
A 66-year-old man called Ian Kerr opened it. The investigators announced they had a search warrant and were coming in.
A thirty year covert operation to build a database blacklisting union activists in the construction industry had just come to an end.
It was also a vindication of one of the ICO’s most ambitious investigations. The data watchdog took unprecedented legal steps during its eight-month probe. It eventually named more than 40 of the country’s biggest construction companies as having potentially broken data laws. The ramifications led to questions in Parliament and a promise by the Government to outlaw blacklisting.
As the United Kingdom gears up for a general election in 2010, there is growing debate among opposition Conservatives about Britain’s commitment to the war in Afghanistan. Journalist Peter Oborne recently called on Conservative leader David Cameron, the clear frontrunner to be the next prime minister, to develop an independent strategy, lamenting that "the ‘Neocons,’ despite being discredited by the Iraq War, have furtively regained their position at the heart of the Tory Party."[1] Defensively pointing out that the neocons on the candidate’s team are "silent on foreign policy," conservative London blogger David Blackburn retorted that Cameron is "emphatically not" a neoconservative.[2]
The popularity of the neocon label on the European side of the Atlantic has grown considerably since the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the resulting notoriety surrounding the many pro-war ideologues in the administration of President George W. Bush. However, as use of the term expands in the United Kingdom and other European countries, an intriguing question arises: What exactly is a European neocon?
The controversial biotech company, Monsanto has won the Angry Mermaid Award 2009.
At a press confernce this morning at the UN climate talks, the award-winning writer and journalist Naomi Klein anounced the biotech giant had won with 37% of the total vote.
Oil giant Shell took second place (18%) in the Award for lobbying to sabotage effective action on climate change, followed by the American Petroleum Institute (14%).
Ten thousand people voted in the Angry Mermaid Award, named after the iconic Copenhagen mermaid who is angry about corporate lobbying on climate change.
Book Shop
Tamasin Cave, 8 February 2010
5 February 2010 
We often feel like government doesn't listen enough to us, and listens too much to paid lobbyists working for business. Whether it’s IT companies lobbying for the introduction of ID cards, private healthcare firms wanting a piece of the NHS, arms companies pushing for government to spend more money on defence, or the aviation industry lobbying for airport expansion. We should know who is influencing government decisions.
Despite denying repeatedly that he played a ‘sexing up game’ when working on the government’s much-criticised dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Alastair Campbell acknowledged in his evidence to the Chilcot Inquiry (12.1.2010) that his role had been unprecedented.
15 December 2009