An unpublished letter to the Guardian on where all the money has gone:
Each time I turn on the BBC I hear that difficult decisions have to be made, by whoever is elected. This comes down to: Do we want to give all our money to pay for the bankers this year or would we rather wait a bit? In all this debate no one has asked the obvious questions of how much wealth there is in the country, and who is best able to pay.
The focus groups which we conduct, light up when such issues are raised, but heaven forbid that politicians should be asked about such indelicate topics. The total UK wealth is £ 9 thousand billion, the top 20% own between 5 and 6 thousand billion of this, nearly all in property and pensions.*
Remember in a single year the denizens of the city paid themselves £21 billion in bonus payments and now we know where these went. The deficit is a mere £150 billion or thereabouts. But instead of discussing who could pay without missing it too much, public debate is constrained to issues like vat rises, which would hurt the poorest, who have no wealth, only debts.
By Ray Moynihan, conjoint lecturer, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia [1]
The mission of the American Council on Science and Health has remained the same since it was formed over 25 years ago: to promote sound science and help the public distinguish genuine health threats from purely hypothetical ones.1 Unashamed to take an unpopular stance on the big issues of our times, the council regularly weighs in on heated public debates about food safety, drug regulation, and potentially toxic pollution. The main targets of its criticism, however, are generally not the chemical giants, drug companies, or the food industry. Rather these industries are the council’s funders. The council sees the real threat as coming from those who believe chemicals are inherently dangerous, those who want to see tougher drug safety standards, and those obsessed with exposing conflicts of interest within the healthcare establishment.
Although the council’s reports and publications generate media interest and public attention, it is not a lobby group. It is a not for profit organisation that, under US law, is prohibited from lobbying if it wants to keep tax exempt status. A small outfit with only a handful of staff, fewer than 12 paid writers, and a turnover under $2m (£1.3m; 1.5m) annually, the council has an extended network of hundreds of scientific advisers. Despite its modest size, the council’s voice is often heard, not least through the influential pages of the New York Post and Washington Times.
The Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate and lobbyist for Hackney and Stoke Newington, Darren Caplan, has been spoofed by activist film makers ‘Don’t Panic’.
Joe Wade from ‘Don’t Panic’ joined Caplan on the campaign trail, confronting the PPC and exposing his links to lobbying to unsuspecting voters. Caplan, who is campaigning on a “support local business” ticket, heads up lobbying for the PR firm Brands2Life, whose clients include that notorious “friend” of small shops, Tesco.You can see the film here.
We write to correct inaccuracies and misinformation in two recent Forth articles: Will Deighton’s ‘How Zac Goldsmith bought the green movement’ and the anonymously authored ‘Beware of Tory heir tax exiles bearing chequebooks’ (published 23 April 2010). We assume that the latter was also written by Will Deighton as it appears on a new blog, SpinWatchwatch, where he is listed as the author. We also want to raise some queries about the identity of ‘Will Deighton’ and consequently about the policy of Forth in publishing such material.
First, we will deal with the inaccuracies, which we ask Forth to correct. We will go on to discuss the network or organization that appears to be linked to these articles in Forth.
Transparency and SpinWatch.
SpinWatch is a small non-profit organisation created in 2005. It provides public interest reporting on spin and deception and campaigns for lobbying transparency. We were co-founders of the Europe-wide Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation(i) and the more recent UK campaign, the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency.(ii)
The Spinwatch campaign targeting parliamentary candidates with links to lobbying has got under the skin of George Eustice, Conservative PPC for Camborne and Redruth in Cornwall. Eustice, Cameron’s former press secretary, worked until recently for lobbying and PR consultancy Portland PR. He writes on his blog how he heard there was to be an online lobbying campaign against him, initiated by “a girl called Tamasin Cave, a political activist who writes regularly for Lib Dem blogs”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Tamasin, a Spinwatch director - who is nearly 40 should that be of interest to anyone – is in regular touch with bloggers from Left Foot Forward to Guido Fawkes. Attempting to tie the Spinwatch campaign to Lib Dem activism is, well, the kind of obfuscatory tactic one would expect from a professional lobbyist. And it’s clearly sticking. When Spinwatch recently spoke to the Falmouth Packet, a local paper covering Camborne, the reporter asked whether we were linked to the Lib Dems. No, the simple truth is this campaign has focused on the Tories because they have the largest number of PPCs who are professional lobbyists. We believe this is the reason why the Conservatives remain alone among the main parties in refusing to sign up to a statutory register of lobbyists.
Tories backtrack on statutory register
STOP PRESS
20th APRIL 2010
Yesterday the Conservatives said they backed a statutory register for lobbying. But today it emerges that the commitment, made by the Tory manifesto writer Jeremy Hunt himself, was in fact a gaffe. The Tories have since confirmed that they're going to stick to their plans for self regulation – plans which are extremely popular with lobbyists but are derided as woefully inadequate by transparency campaigners and the other two political parties.
Yesterday we welcomed what looked like a major breakthrough but today we’re back to square one where the Tories are concerned. What can be going on when the manifesto writer himself says one thing only to be rebuked by Central Office hours later?
Could it be that pressure from behind the scenes from the lobbying industry is throwing policy on transparency into disarray? The Tories are in a vulnerable position - because despite Cameron’s fine words on transparency so many of their prospective parliamentary candidates work as lobbyists and so many of their friends are lobbyists. Isn’t it time they backed rhetoric with action and showed support for their manifesto writer rather than leaving him with egg on his face?
Tories commit to statutory lobbying register
19th April 2010
In a significant policy u-turn the Conservatives today committed to a statutory register of lobbying – the last major party to do so.
In their manifesto the Tories supported a voluntary code. But speaking live on a Question Time debate hosted by The Guardian and grassroots campaign group 38 Degrees, Jeremy Hunt, the shadow culture secretary who wrote the manifesto, said: “We have said there needs to be a statutory register of interests.” Asked at the end of the programme to confirm the statement as it contradicts the manifesto, Hunt said: “We believe in a statutory code.”
Transparency campaigners welcomed the comments. David Miller, spokesperson for the Alliance of Lobbying Transparency, said: "If this really is now the Tory policy this is a significant change. It means that all parties now agree with us that transparency can only be guaranteed by a statutory register of lobbyists. Eighteen months ago no major political party was prepared to sign up to meaningful action on lobbying. Public outrage and our campaign has forced them to take the first significant steps towards openness."
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have already pledged support for a statutory register, but Liberal Democrat chief of staff Danny Alexander said his party would go much further, changing the ministerial code to forbid ministers to meet MPs on issues they are paid to lobby on and publishing a register of MPs interests before they entered parliament.
Tory pledges to clean up lobbying are woefully inadequate, transparency campaigners claimed today.
Despite the rhetoric, David Cameron’s promise to clean up the political system is not backed up with meaningful action.Although both the other main parties have signed up to a statutory register of lobbyists, the Conservatives remain committed to self regulation.
Instead their manifesto pledges that ex-Ministers will be banned from lobbying government for two years after leaving office. That is welcome but in reality it will only immediately affect Labour if the Tories win the election.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
POLICE forces in England and Wales now spend around £30 million a year on corporate communications’ departments. Budgets have risen by 40 per cent in the last five years – partly driven by Government demands to hit “public confidence” targets. Former crime reporter NIGEL GREEN asks whether this has shifted the balance of power between the police and the media and whether regional newspapers are now being force-fed propaganda.
WE are just weeks away from an election.
And, while the battle will be fought on a range of topics, there is little doubt that law and order will be high on the list for voters.
The Government is keen to convince us that crime is falling and our streets are safer than they have been in decades.
There is, of course, little new in politicians making such claims.
But, what I believe is new is the extent to which journalists and the police are being used to pump out this propaganda.
A recent report from the Government’s own Scientific Advisory Committee revealed nearly two thirds of Home Office press releases contain misleading or unsubstantiated claims.
Meanwhile, my own research reveals that police forces in England and Wales now spend around £30 million a year on media departments. Budgets have grown by 40 per cent in five years.
Senior police officers claim the rise is largely due to the extra demands from the media.
But I believe there is also a political factor.
Forces are under pressure from the Government to hit “public confidence” targets and reduce the “fear of crime”.
The Sunday Times reports that Caborn talked about a number of services he could offer the fictitious lobbying firm (at a daily rate of £2,500 “plus expenses”). He said he would be willing to build relations with ministers who were “good friends”. He was also happy to approach senior Conservatives if they came to power.
Caborn was also taped claiming that he may be in line for a peerage, which would boost his chances of extracting valuable information from the corridors of Westminster. Asked how he could help the firm if he were in the Lords, Caborn replied: “Well, access. Access to people ... You are in the environment, you’re moving around.” This included access to ministers.
Book Shop
5th May 2010
David Miller and Claire Robinson, 5 May 2010
