Category Archives: Conflict of interest
An audience seriously considering the proposal
With thanks to the reader working in Uganda who sent the Hitchens link and remembering another who yesterday advocated ABC voting, ‘Anything But Conservative’.
Peter Hitchens insisted, some time ago, that a lot of people feel left out of the recovery we are supposed to be having, and they need a powerful voice in Parliament, adding:
“There is nothing good (or conservative) about low wages, insecure jobs and a mad housing market which offers nothing but cramped rooms and high rents to young families just when they need space, proper houses with gardens, and security . . .
“The truth is that both major parties have been taken over by the same cult, the Clinton-Blair fantasy that globalism, open borders and mass immigration will save the great nations of the West. It hasn’t worked. In the USA it has failed so badly that the infuriated, scorned, impoverished voters of Middle America are on the point of electing a fake-conservative yahoo businessman as President”.
Hitchens concludes that many Labour MPs have more in common with Mrs May than with Mr Corbyn and will ‘snuggle up beside her absurdly misnamed Conservative Party’.
He believes that the British public will at last see clearly that their only response is to form an alliance against the two big parties: “Impossible? Look how quickly this happened in Scotland”.
This Green House pamphlet with contributions from Molly Scott Cato MEP, Victor Anderson, Rupert Read, Jonathan Essex and Sara Parkin was written before the EU referendum and the economic and political turmoil which has followed but the authors believe its analysis and conclusions are still valid.
In her introduction, MEP Molly Scott Cato points out that a route to a more positive future offering hope to the majority of citizens is blocked by our archaic and unrepresentative electoral system which enables one party to control so much power with a minority of the votes cast. She continues:
“Our primary target is our electoral system. In the 2015 general election the Green Party received 1 million votes but only one parliamentary seat. By contrast the Scottish National Party received 1.5 million votes and 56 seats.
“This is the logic of first past the post . . . but as voters move into a multi-party future the system entrenches political stasis and blocks progressive change”. Later she cites Germany as the most striking example of a country that has benefited from Greens in power:
“Its industries are successful because Greens in government encouraged them to move into the new era of low carbon energy production before other European countries. Germany has turned its back on the nuclear age and is rapidly phasing out fossil fuels. Germany is the economy in Europe that is benefiting most from the energy transition that dangerous climate change requires of us. It is Greens in government who enabled this process”.
She, and other Green House members invite everyone who wants to see an alternative to continued Conservative government to join in the discussion about what that alternative can be.
“Labour is never going to be back on 44% in the opinion polls. The electorate is too fragmented for that, and above all Labour’s electoral base is too fractured for it ever to happen again”.
(Ed: we note that the British Labour Party is already one of the parties and organisations from over 90 countries which participate in the International Progressive Alliance network of social-democratic and progressive political parties.)
Gilbert continues: “Would you rather it happen now, while the Left retains the leadership of the party, or in five or ten years time, when the Right is back in control? Would you rather have a Progressive Alliance, or an alliance of revanchist Blairites, (May)ites and ‘Orange Book’ Liberal Democrats? Because if we do not seize the initiative now, then the latter is what we are going to get, soon enough. This is going to happen sooner or later”.
As Steve Beauchampé writes in the Birmingham Press and Political Concern, generations of an elite have ruled this nation (with a few intermissions) for as long as anyone can remember, due to a rigged electoral system.
Their dual achievements:
- comfortable tax arrangements for the few, a political/corporate nexus which ensures highly paid and nominal duties for all in the inner circle
- vast military expenditure bestowed on the arms industry, as rising numbers of the population survive in relative poverty, wait in hospital corridors, receive a sub-standard education and depend on handouts to eke out their existence.
Direction of travel
Beauchampé: “(The) economy is increasingly kept afloat by the economic support of China . . . The modern high-rise residential blocks that have sprung up throughout the capital may give the impression of a modern, flourishing economy, but look closely and you will see that many are all but empty, whilst homelessness and a reliance on subsistence level housing grows . . . “He notes that surveillance is at an historic high with spy cameras, and even microphones installed in many public places -describing the state’s ability to track the population and follow their activities and conversations as ‘frightening’. . .
The elite stranglehold could be broken
OB’s editor agrees with many that electoral reform is a priority for beneficial change – but even under the rigged ‘first past the post’ system, if the weary mass of people (Brenda of Bristol) saw the true situation they would vote for the candidate with a credible track record who would be most likely to work for the common good.
The corporate world continues its vitriolic but insubstantial attacks on the Labour Party leader whose approach threatens their unreasonably affluent lifestyles. Will increasingly media-sceptical people who seek the common good be affected by them?
In brief, the reference is to arms traders, big pharma, construction giants, energy companies owned by foreign governments, food speculators, the private ill-health industry and a range of polluting interests. Examples of the damaging political-corporate nexus are given here – a few of many recorded on our database:
Arms trade: Steve Beauchampé – “A peacenik may lay down with some unsavoury characters. Better that than selling them weapons”.
The media highlights Corbyn’s handshakes and meetings, but not recent British governments’ collusion in repressive activities, issuing permits to supply weapons to dictators. In the 80s, when lobbying Conservative MP John Taylor about such arms exports, he said to the writer, word for word: “If we don’t do it, someone else will”. Meaning if we don’t help other countries to attack their citizens, others will. How low can we sink!
Reader Theresa drew our attention to an article highlighting the fact that the Specialised Healthcare Alliance (SHCA), a lobbying company working for some of the world’s biggest drugs and medical equipment firms, had written the draft report for NHS England, a government quango. This was when the latest attempt at mass-medication – this time with statins – was in the news.
Most construction entries related to the PFI debacle, but in 2009 it was reported that more than 100 construction companies – including Balfour Beatty, Kier Group and Carillion – had been involved in a price-fixing conspiracy and had to compensate local authority victims who had been excluded from billions of pounds of public works contracts. The Office of Fair Trading imposed £130m of fines on 103 companies. Price-fixing that had left the public and councils to “pick up the tab”.
In Utility Week News, barrister Roger Barnard, former head of regulatory law at EDF Energy, wondered whether any government is able to safeguard the nation’s energy security interests against the potential for political intervention under a commercial guise, whether by Gazprom, OPEC, or a sovereign wealth fund. He added: “Despite what the regulators say, ownership matters”. The Office of Fair Trading was closed before it could update its little publicised 2010 report which recorded that 40% of infrastructure assets in the energy, water, transport, and communication sectors were already owned by foreign investors.
A Lancashire farmer believes that supermarkets – powerful lobbyists and valued party funders – are driving out production of staple British food supplies and compromising our food security. She sees big business seeking to make a fortune from feeding the wealthy in distant foreign countries where the poor and the environment are both exploited. These ‘greedy giants’ are exploiting the poor across the world and putting at risk the livelihoods of hard working British farmers, their families and their communities. She adds that large businesses are gradually asset-stripping everything of value from our communities to make profits which are then invested abroad in places like China and Thailand.
Government resistance to funding long-term out of work illness/disability benefits followed the publication of a monograph by the authors funded by America’s ‘corporate giant’ Unum Provident Insurance which influenced the policy of successive governments. After various freedom of information requests, the DWP published the mortality figures of the claimants who had died in 11 months in 2011 whilst claiming Employment and Support Allowance, with 10,600 people dying in total and 1300 people dying after being removed from the guaranteed monthly benefit, placed into the work related activity group regardless of diagnosis, forced to prepare for work and then died trying. Following the public outrage once the figures were published, the DWP have consistently refused to publish updated death totals. Information touched on in this 2015 article has been incorporated into a ResearchGate report identifying the influence of Unum Provident over successive UK governments since 1992, the influence of a former government Chief Medical Officer and the use of the Work Capability Assessments conducted by the private sector – described as state crime by proxy, justified as welfare reform.
The powerful transport lobby prevents or delays action to address air pollutants such as ground-level ozone and particulates emitted by cars, lorries and rail engines which contribute directly to global warming, linked to climate change. They emit some common air pollutants that have serious effects on human health and the environment. Children in areas exposed to air pollutants commonly suffer from pneumonia and asthma.
Victimised whistleblowers, media collusion, rewards for failure and the revolving door
- A recent whistleblower report records that Dr Raj Mattu is one of very few to be vindicated and compensated after years of suffering. The government does not implement its own allegedly strengthened whistleblower legislation to protect those who make ‘disclosures in the public interest’.
- This media article relates to the mis-reporting of the Obama-Corbyn meeting: there are 57 others on this site.
- Rewards for failure cover individual cases, most recently Lin Homer, and corporate instances: Serco and G4S were bidding for a MoD £400m 10-year deal, though they had been referred to the Serious Fraud Office for overcharging the government on electronic monitoring contracts. Another contender, Capita, according to a leaked report by research company Gartner was two years behind schedule with its MoD online recruitment computer system – yet the government had contracted to pay the company £1bn over 10 years to hire 9,000 soldiers a year for the army.
- The 74th instance of the revolving door related to Andrew Lansley’s move from his position as government health minister to the private health sector. An investigation by the Mail found that one in three civil servants who took up lucrative private sector jobs was working in the Ministry of Defence: Last year 394 civil servants applied to sell their skills to the highest bidder – and 130 were MoD personnel. Paul Gosling describes how the Big Four accountancy firms have PFI ‘under their thumbs’ and gives a detailed list of those passing from government to the accountancy industry and vice versa.
Steve Beauchampé asks if the barrage of criticism apparently aimed at Jeremy Corbyn is more about undermining the politics he stands for which are probably less far to the left than those of many in the current government are to the right. Most political commentators and opponents aren’t worried that Labour will win a General Election under him, but they are alarmed that the movement his leadership has created might one day lead to an electable left winger.
Readers respond to the last post – Media 75:
One says that Sky mentioned this poll on Monday and a political commentator used the majority approval result to rubbish Corbyn.
Business Insider is more subtle: whilst acknowledging the correct result, it depreciates it by comparing it with a poll held twelve months ago, heading this with the reflection that party members are beginning to turn on JC.
Another question was about who was polled and Business Insider gave a lead to YouGov’s agency, Election Data, who explains:
Having been responsible for the YouGov’s Labour leadership polling over the last 18 months, Election Data has asked me to shed some light on how YouGov is consistently able to accurately reflect the membership in these niche elections. Read on here. For YouGov’s Labour leadership polls, they use a number of important demographics:
- Social Grade
- Vote in the 2016 Labour leadership election
- Membership length
When you look at the full tables, you will note that there are significant differences amongst some of these groups; members who joined before and after Corbyn’s leadership are, for example, very different in their strength of support for Jeremy. This is why it is so important to get the relative sizes of these groups right for each of the bullet points above. If they’re wrong, the overall sample will be wrong and your results will not be accurate of the membership as a whole.
The Metro (hard copy only),scandalously does not mention the majority approval/trust rating, leading its readers to infer from Corbyn’s less favourable votes on other issues that he has completely lost the support of party members. Its headline: “Half of Labour members ‘want Corbyn to quit’ “ – but no mention of over half who trust and support him. It then goes on to speculate about possible successors. A reader’s advice:
–Ask your readers to complain to the Sun or any of the other papers who have carried the false story about JC’s tax returns and ask for an apology and correction.
–And flood the frankly useless IPSO (regulator which is said to ‘uphold high standards of journalism’) with complaints and see if they actually do anything or just prove themselves a total waste of time that Hacked Off always said they would be.
If any reader really needs explanations for the hostility and misrepresentations surrounding Jeremy Corbyn, emanating from vested interests, they will be summarised in the next post on this site ‘Broken Britain’.
“Tens of thousands of our cleverest minds are engaged in the utterly unproductive activity of advising their clients how to avoid tax”: Edward Lucas, The Economist
This site has recorded far more instances of rewards for ethical, commercial or financial failures but the editor stopped searching at 29. A typical example filed two years ago stars Lin Homer and John Manzoni. Another example – The message: in Britain you can break the law or be colossally inefficient and yet still be promoted and/or rewarded: “Former MP Jacqui Smith, who lost her Redditch seat after being involved in an expenses scandal has been appointed chair of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust. Edgbaston MP Gisela Stuart was quoted in the Birmingham Post at the time as saying “It looks to me as if we are rewarding failure and I have raised this with the Health Secretary”. A few covered on this site were: Goldman Sachs, Dave Hartnett, London Midlands Rail and Hector Sants.”
“My thrifty delight in collecting stamps on my Café Nero loyalty cards used to be a joke in my family. When I discovered last year that the company hadn’t paid corporation tax since 2008, I collected my accumulated four free coffees with a snarl, and have not darkened its doors since. I don’t go to Starbucks either, and use tax-dodging companies such as Amazon and Facebook with a heavy heart. It’s not just that these companies abuse loopholes in our tax regime: it’s that our government colludes with them — as demonstrated by last week’s sweetheart deal between George Osborne and Google”.
“By creating a climate of favouritism, coupled with occasional bouts of public shaming, we debase our collective tax morality. As I hunt for missing dividend slips and tot up my expenses for my own tax return, my diligence and honesty are not encouraged by the feeling that all this is optional: were I only a million times richer, I would have a nice lunch with HMRC or the chancellor himself, and sort out a deal that makes us both look good”.
“A good tax system is simple, sweeping and severe. There should be no room for lobbying by the powerful; nor should politicians be able to dole out favours to companies or activities that they want to encourage . . . Other countries do it better. I used to live in Estonia, which boasts one of the best and simplest tax systems in the world.
Ed: see http://www.emta.ee/?id=29268
Corporate profits and individual income are taxed at a flat 21%. Your tax return appears on your computer screen with almost everything already filled in (Estonia is a pioneer in e-government) . . . Estonia spends only 0.34% of its tax take on collection and administration. We spend more than twice that”.
Edward Lucas concludes that it may not be possible to adopt Estonia’s system overnight, but any attempt to make Britain’s tax system flatter, simpler and broader will bring benefits. Tax lawyers and accountants are all but unknown in Estonia, because a system with almost no loopholes gives them no scope. And though the tax industry will hate it, “their howls of protest will be the best sign that the policy is succeeding”.
His reference to land taxation has been published on the Thomas Attwood site– together with a link to Martin Wolf’s presentation on monetary reform to the Economic Affairs Committee. One reader comments that a flat tax is unjust to the poorest.
Mary Robinson fails to mention the corruption and self-serving that has characterized the “elite global agenda”
Millions across the world feel that the current globalised system is not working in their best interests. From unemployed former steel workers in the US rust belt, to the small island states in the South Pacific where livelihoods are threatened by climate change, people are angry that decisions taken by governments and in corporate boardrooms appear blithely indifferent to their daily struggles. We know from history that crude populism offers no real solutions, creating only false hope and scapegoats. Yet it is also clear that there are many politicians who will cynically exploit genuine grievances for their own ends”.
She ended by calling on citizens across the globe to trust their best instincts and work together for justice, but thoughtful commentators pinpointed omissions which underlie the uneasy reaction of some readers (extracts follow, all links added).
John Bruce addresses Ms Robinson: “With immense respect the air in your ivory tower isn’t what the rest of us breathe”
This article epitomises the views of a human being with a great heart but so out of touch as not to begin to understand the realities of life as understood by those who voted Brexit, or for Trump, or who are, and will be, powering the whole ground swell of global discontent.
It is not about leadership per se, but its abuse in pursuing greed over decency and values
Simon elaborates: This tip of the hat to the discontent of the “Millions across the world” seems well intentioned. But Robinson fails to embrace the significant corruption and self-dealing that has characterized the “elite global agenda”.
Yes, in theory globalization offers much promise, but its idealistic promoters have inexcusably turned a blind eye to abuses, distortions and fraud in globalization’s execution. All too frequently, dissent has been brushed aside as populist ignorance.
Globalization’s idealistic leaders (The Elders?) have lost credibility precisely because they have failed to call out the “fellow traveler” profiteers in their own ranks, and likewise been cheerleaders to globalization’s stark imbalances.
John Bruce continues: One price of this has been consumerist capitalism – a policy to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the not so well.
The mechanism has been education to a belief that “I shop therefore I am” – all on the back of expensive debt to the individual, supplied at near zero cost by institutions which, in a free market, would no longer be in it.
That is the cause of disaffection and it threatens revolution. Corbyn is right 20/1 is a pay ratio the civilised world needs to adopt or, had we still been here, the future would have been a time of immense violence – politics by other means to get rid of the oppressive mortmain on the lives and aspirations of the many by the protected and privileged few. An elite whose leadership has long been to protect the status quo and vested interest. Not something anyone with the power to do anything wishes to change.
The deep entrenchment of such leadership, based on the comfortable misconception of its beneficiaries, that the answer to poverty is simply to make the rich richer and it will simply trickle down, has come to put humanity at risk never before faced.
The second price to be paid for consumerist capitalism is its carbon footprint
Nature has the capacity to re-cycle 280 – 300 ppm carbon pa (note Keeling). The system has been out of control since about 1980. Now, 40 years later and in absence of intervention – to make clean energy to put coal oil and gas out of business and convert current engines to run clean – we have no future.
It is, on the evidence, that stark. But just as the conventional wisdom was wrong in thinking the RMS Titanic couldn’t sink so today we no less deliberately deny ourselves the reality, preferring a delusion which allows us to think that by cutting carbon we can remain below 1.5C.
Bruce ends prophetically: “What drives our weather will set our destiny.”
Is that news to anyone?
This site and others have been focussing on this appalling phenomenon corrupting governance for years, so much so that corruption of politicians and supporting media is no longer shocking: it is the norm.
As such, frequent news of revolving doors and rewards for failure has been under-reported on this site of late – despite many significant leads from regular readers – because these items just repeat our view of the state of the nation.
However the ever-eloquent George Monbiot is more persistent
He explains: “Dark money is the term used in the US for the undisclosed funding of organisations involved in political advocacy. Few people would see a tobacco company as a credible source on public health, or a coal company as a neutral commentator on climate change. To advance their political interests, such companies must pay others to speak on their behalf”.
Though corporate America was horrified by some of Donald Trump’s positions, especially on trade, once he had secured the nomination, big money began to recognise an unprecedented opportunity.
Monbiot continues: “Trump was prepared not only to promote the cause of corporations in government, but to turn government into a kind of corporation, staffed and run by executives and lobbyists. His incoherence was not a liability but an opening: his agenda could be shaped. And the dark money network that some American corporations had already developed was perfectly positioned to shape it”.
He looks into the historical background:
“Soon after the Second World War, some of America’s richest people began setting up a network of thinktanks to promote their interests. These purport to offer dispassionate opinions on public affairs. But they are more like corporate lobbyists, working on behalf of those who founded and fund them.
“These are the organisations now running much of the Trump administration”.
He then relates the story of MP Liam Fox
In 1997, Liam Fox founded an organisation called The Atlantic Bridge. Its patron was Margaret Thatcher. On its advisory council sat the future cabinet ministers Michael Gove, George Osborne, William Hague and Chris Grayling. Fox, who became a leading campaigner for Brexit, described the mission of The Atlantic Bridge as “to bring people together who have common interests”. It would defend these interests from “European integrationists who would like to pull Britain away from its relationship with the United States”. The Atlantic Bridge (link no longer informative) was later registered as a charity – only after it collapsed did the full story of who had funded it emerge.
Read the tedious and depressing details in the Guardian or on this site here.
How did Fox achieve this position, after the scandal that brought him down six years ago? Monbiot explains: “The man who ran the UK branch of The Atlantic Bridge was his friend Adam Werrity, who . . . carried a business card naming him as Fox’s adviser but was never employed by the Ministry of Defence, joined the secretary of state on numerous ministerial visits overseas, and made frequent visits to Fox’s office”.
The Charity Commission investigated The Atlantic Bridge and determined that its work didn’t look very charitable. It had to pay back the tax from which it had been exempted (Hintze picked up the bill) and the trustees shut the organisation down. Monbiot continues; “As the story about Adam Werrity’s unauthorised involvement in the business of government began to grow, Fox made a number of misleading statements. He was left with no choice but to resign”.
As the Financial Times reported, the election of Donald Trump transformed the fortunes of Liam Fox: he is back on the front bench, with a crucial and sensitive portfolio – Secretary of State for International Trade – an indispensable member of Theresa May’s front bench team: “The shadow diplomatic mission he developed through The Atlantic Bridge plugs him straight into the Trump administration”.
Taking back control from Europe means closer integration with the US
Monbiot adds that European laws protecting the public interest were portrayed by Conservative Eurosceptics as intolerable intrusions on corporate freedom and the transatlantic ‘special relationship’ is a relationship between political and corporate power. He ends with the following warning, sent by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1938 to the US Congress:
“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism”.
Monbiot adds “It is a warning we would do well to remember”.