Read Write

Making the world smile, one muscle at a time

I did not have lobbying with that Australian, says pudgy-faced Prime Minister

by Marrick on July 20, 2013

So, why won’t David Cameron confirm or deny that he discussed fracking with Lynton Crosby?

I’m not suggesting any impropriety, despite Crosby’s close association with the fracking industry and the sudden and unexpected tax breaks offered to them. Neither am I suggesting that fracking is dangerous and likely to cause damage to the environment including water contamination. What I would like to know is why the chief SB is being evasive about it?

And why is the chief SB also avoiding questions about Lynton Crosby and tobacco. For sure Crosby Textor represent Philip Morris and all of sudden the government backtracked on plain cigarette packages. It doesn’t really matter whether this will work or not, what does matter is whether or not the PM-SB discussed it with Crosby. Why is he avoiding saying whether or not he HAS discussed with him?

Crosby Textor also represents a drinks industry body that has campaigned against minimum pricing. Lo and behold, the Government formally abandoned a plan previously backed by Mr Cameron to set a minimum unit price for alcohol to combat binge drinking.

Of course Crosby "has never lobbied (the PM-SB) on anything", but he will not say if they actually "discussed" it.

And why does the Government’s long-delayed Bill to set up a register of lobbyists paid to lobby on behalf of a third party contain a loophole that would allow Crosby Textor not to join the list or name its clients?

Why is the government opposing a Labour amendment that would close that loophole, and force all professional lobbyists working in the UK to declare their full list of clients on a statutory register and the approximate value of such work; ensure the list includes people working for a governing party as well as the Government and avoid conflicts of interest?

One thought on “I did not have lobbying with that Australian, says pudgy-faced Prime Minister

  1. Mike says:

    Firstly thank you for an enjoyable read on a topic that more people should be pondering

    It did however create a list of opposing questions in my mind whilst reading it and although I do TRY (often unsuccessfully) to not respond to a question with a question I cant help but ask

    why would employees of big tobacco, gas, oil, WWW (world wide water), GM crops, alcohol and food multinationals go against their employers merely to assuage the voters and risk lower campaign contributions?

    Kind of like cutting your own nose off and then using it to pull the trigger on a gun pointed at your one foot whilst the other is so far down your throat that your gag reflex is in effect all of which is totally muffled by the fact their head is so far up their campaign contributors arse holes that their shoulders are threatening to vanish

    The reality here is that “lobbying” in itself is set to become redundant as long as campaign and party donations are the life blood of political parties to keep the doors open between elections

    As long as that is the case the major players wont have to “lobby” as such, they just need some quiet time to outline what they want from their employees and to make it blatantly clear that doing what they want is how they will guarantee the continued stream of donations and for higher officials the nice chairmanships and business breaks along the way that makes up their real “wages” for the job theyre actually doing rather than the one voters THINK theyre doing

    Gone are days of left and right wing ideologies

    In a world where it costs 10s if not hundreds of millions of pounds to keep a political party with any chance of winning just ticking over each year and where unions aren’t much of a revenue stream nowadays both sides are more openly funded by the exact same groups of very deep pockets albeit often via different paths through their army of subsidiaries

    This means that rather than opposing parties we now have a good cop/bad cop type of arrangement where the shared goals they are working towards are dictated by what is best for their campaign donators and the people who control the money flow

    What was lobbying for the large money organisations nowadays is more akin to the government meeting the person who pays their wages (secures their financial future) for a regular review session to TELL them what they are expected to do for the next X amount of months

    I suspect that as the only real benefactor from the minimum per unit price is the government as the extra was going to be pure taxation then they were instructed to drop it

    but had the extra been half tax and half extra income for people like walmart then I am sure the government (tories AND labour) would have been told to put it through

    Its impact on voters as with most things it wholly irrelevant nowadays because what can they do?

    When both parties are bought and paid for by the same groups and types of people all with common goals to increase profits and shareholders dividends at the expense of everyone else along with removing the need for tax by removing as much of things like the welfare state and social provision as is possible then all the voters CAN do is get annoyed with group of bought and paid for employees A and vote in group of bought and paid for employees B

    The actual people pulling the strings and the overall aims remain the same, all that changes is the people working towards those aims whilst the public think they have “made their point”

    Kind of funny in a way I guess, but hardly worth laughing at none the less

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: