I'm a lobbyist. AMA.

[nachdemregen]

As above, I work in public affairs, aka lobbying. I usually describe myself as a lobbyist as most people look at me blankly when I say 'public affairs'!

Which department do you sit within in your org and who do you report to? Which teams do you work closely with?

Ok, take your Tesco example. Tesco has a legal duty to act in the interest of its shareholders. Not its suppliers, or its employees, or even its customers - the legal duty of a corporation is to the interests of its shareholders.

Sure, Tesco can pay a lobbyist to proclaim that they are acting in the interests of the poor hard-working consumer, but in reality that isn’t the role of a corporation.

Similarly, anyone paid from the public purse has a duty to act in the public interest. Check out the Nolan Principles if you want clarification.

I don’t actually think it’s in the “too difficult” category to run a government system that is focused on acting in the public interest. It requires the right culture, and punishment at all levels when the Nolan principles are not upheld.

In my view there’s a real and serious moral problem with our current Westminster political culture that says that paid-for lobbying by vested interests is a good and acceptable part of government. It is the ability to buy subversion of the democratic process, is it not?

I sit in my own team, and I report to the COO.

I work really closely with loads of teams - product, marketing, technical teams, sales, even customer service sometimes. The company I work for has lots of political issues that affect us in different ways so a big part of the job is having the right relationships internally.

'It is the ability to buy subversion of the democratic process, is it not?'

How do you think the democratic process works? Decisions are made on information available. It's up to lobbyists to provide information. It is up to politicians and the civil service to examine it critically and make a decision.

Do you think it's subversion of the democratic process for example for a domestic violence charity to lobby the government to get (for example) financial abuse to be made illegal? Or for Shelter to lobby the government for more resources to support homeless people? Or BPAS to lobby a government proposing lowering the abortion limit not to?

For a start you likened yourself to a barrister rather than a solicitor. Barristers are in the main extremely intelligent and articulate. Now I’m not saying lobbyists are stupid, but it’s a different league.

Barristers work within the law as passed and within the set procedures of the courts. This provides a clear framework and rules of engagement. Lobbying doesn’t work like that because politics doesn’t. In some ways this makes it far more interesting and challenging, but there are far more complex factors that determine whether your cause is going to “win” - and if it has won whether you were actually as instrumental in that as you will tell your clients you were!

Legal judgements at least broadly bend towards justice. Government policy does not necessarily. Politicians will often adopt positions that they know are ineffective, counter productive or downright dangerous because their reading of “the politics” informs an assessment that it’s nevertheless the best course of action on balance.

Litigants in person are doomed to fail, whereas an individual person lobbying a politician can often be surprisingly effective if they tap into a preconceived opinion.

Natural England are also public servants and also have external affairs teams who advise DEFRA from their arms length position, as do greenpeace, surfers against sewerage and several other charities, third sector bodies. They have a long standing relationships with a range of impartial (which never exists in any setting) specialists. The role is two way though, you can’t sit in your corner of the world hoping someone says what a good job you’re doing and can we please have you tell us what to do - your PA team is pretty weak if they haven’t been able to link you into central govt.

Of course civil servants are generalists within their specific area, surely you can see that working on a large multinational scale across parliaments is too vast for anyone to be across. Lobbying isn’t always fiscal, particularly in the charity sector despite what someone says, it’s the opposite - NICE guidance regarding treatment, bathing water quality, food regulation, homelessness support services, pesticides, ULEZ/LTNs are all examples of effective charity/third sector lobbying and campaigning (whatever your views on them). I’ll bow out now as it’s not my thread but it has been interesting!

I wouldn't say the role of a lobbyist is to proclaim that they're being 'nice' (although of course they're there to put a company's best foot forward). I'd say a lobbyist is there to be a critical friend to government and try and persuade it to act in a way that's beneficial to the company.

The thing is - by your logic, corporations shouldn't have a duty to shareholders but to the public, no? And we know where that leads and unfortunately it doesn't really work.

I know a little about the Nolan principles but I'd also argue that a politician's primary aim -regardless of the principles- is to get re-elected. So a lot of the time, aren't they putting party before country? And if so, wouldn't they want to be doing things that are right by businesses as well as the public?

I don't think lobbying is a subversion of the public interest. I said above that if ever you've gone to see your MP about something, you've lobbied them. That's what they're there for, and it's a good thing.

I completely agree it's unfair that more cash buys more lobbying power. But ultimately, who decides what's in the public interest?

Interesting post. I've worked with some very sharp lobbyists and I've known a couple of none-too-bright barristers! But put that aside.

There are rules and procedures in lobbying too - albeit not as many, and not as complex or formal. I'm sure as an ex-lobbyist you know all about that.

And whether you 'win' as a lobbyist is more subtle than you're making out. There are a lot of factors are play - from who your opponents are, to the personality of the politician you're lobbying, to current public opinion, to what the papers are saying. That's before you get to the quality of your argument, and the evidence you marshal.

As for your point about litigants in person. You try as your average Joanna on the street to write and persuade the Secretary of State of something - see how far you get!

How do you sleep at night knowing you're manipulating the government who should work in the best interests of the people, whereas you are here to preserve the interests of businesses who are effectively buying influence to serve themselves?

I'm happy for you to keep chatting if you want! Agree that lots of lobbying is focused on the Treasury but by no means all. I've relatively little to do with HMT in my current role.

How do you define the best interests of the people?

In my line of work it’s part of my daily role to decide whether a particular proposal is in the public interest, or merely in the private, financial interests of a single individual or company. Public interest assessments are made daily, by many public servants. And yes, for sure, sometimes different public interests compete - but we have clear mechanisms for fairly and openly assessing that and a clear democratic process whereby elected representatives of the people have to make an informed decision, based on facts.

impartiality and fairness is not some unachievable pipe dream, it’s the actual job of public servants. And I honestly don’t see where lobbyists can f it into that, other than as a means of buying undue influence.

You try as your average Joanna on the street to write and persuade the Secretary of State of something - see how far you get!
Ahh that's how you sleep at night. You sound like you think you're better than us mere plebs and therefore that your opinion is more worthy of being enacted.
I prefer things to get done via a real democracy thanks. Looking forward to the day any country actually has one instead of this sort of corrupt shit.

I didn't mean to sound dismissive but I think if you asked most members of the public how they'd persuade a minister to take a certain decision, they wouldn't be able to tell you.

What do you mean by 'real democracy'? Can you point to a country that operates as one?

I'd be interested to know too. Do you think charities should be allowed to lobby?

Eh? There's no way anyone would describe themselves as a that - with reference to UK Politics.

Do you know anyone who has blackmailed someone? I work in development and have heard some stories of developers blackmailing local councillors (third hand stories so not sure how true)

You say, “The thing is - by your logic, corporations shouldn't have a duty to shareholders but to the public, no? And we know where that leads and unfortunately it doesn't really work.”

No, you misunderstand. The clear duty of a private corporation is solely to its shareholders. That’s why it’s a private company and not part of the state.

The clear duty of the state is (should be) to ITS shareholders- ie taxpayers, voters, the population as a whole. Not to private interests at the expense of taxpayers.

Let’s think about water companies: government regulation of water companies at present very much seems to be acting in the shareholder interests of water co shareholders , at the expense of taxpayers and the environment in which they live. That isn’t in the public interest.

Never.

What elements of the role/industry do you dislike?

Nobody in position of influence in the public sector would ever meet with a self proclaimed Lobbyist - so ridiculous! You obviously haven't learned how to obscure your backhanders yet.

No I do get it - of course companies have a sole duty to their shareholders and act in their interest.

And yes government of course should act in the interests of its citizens. But don't you think it's legitimate that business has a voice too?

Let's say the government has a duty to promote economic growth so as to generate more tax which in turn can be spent on public services. A good thing, right, and in the interest of citizens? So a lot of economic activity happens in the private sector. So it's incumbent on the government to encourage this (while making sure markets are fair, people aren't exploited, etc etc). So it would be legitimate for a government to maintain a positive environment to found and grow a business, no?

That all said, I completely agree that something's gone wrong in the water industry. But it seems to me that that could be as much a failure of regulation as corporate greed. But I may be wrong - water regulation definitely isn't my area!

I don't like that it's seen as shadowy and underhand. It's a legitimate part of a democracy and I'd be completely happy to show anyone how it all works. (I only describe myself as lobbyist because otherwise people have no idea what I do for work. Sometimes I say 'government relations' but even that doesn't really describe it).

And as with any job, it has its boring bits! Some of the regulation I work on is pretty niche and you end up having long-winded, detailed conversations about it. It's not sexy at all!

When I talk to anyone in the public sector I say 'public affairs' and they know what that means.

Yup. Bollocks. No one of any influence would meet with a person with an obvious agenda - the very term 'Lobbyist' makes hackles rise all over Whitehall!

I'd get this post deleted if I were you before your 'Consultancy' finds out you're boasting about acting as a lobbyist to government.