Another essential read from Monbiot - shocking and depressing but must be read

[breadandbutterfly]

On how the super-rich and corporations are subverting our democracy:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/17/millionaires-corporations-tax-breaks-sway-opinion

Good article by Monbiot. He is right, there should be much more transparency. But he seems to only concentrate on right wing free market thinktanks. Why not extend the transparency to left wing thinktanks and climate change thinktanks, and show who funds them?

I suspect he concentrates on the right wing because they have the ear of the Tories and it fits his politics but in essence you are correct about all so called think tanks.

i support more transparency and a lobbyist register. But I don't think you can dismiss "the rich" and corporations as subverting democracy by putting forward their views. of course tobacco companies want less regulation of their products - that is stating the obvious. and i don't see how think tanks don't "reveal their hand." Their hand is pretty bloody obvious - all you have to do is read their research or mission statements. For better or worse, it is the corporations and research groups/think tanks that will typically best understand their own industries. It's naive to think they shouldn't be involved in setting policy. Most MPs haven't a clue about industry - how can they possibly determine the best way to run the banking system, defence industry, etc without assistance from the inside? Of course they have an enormous role but policy can't be formed in a vacuum.

incidentally, maybe I just don't understand charitable status very well but how can churches qualify if this is the criteria?:

The Charity Commission disqualified Atlantic Bridge on the grounds that "it is not permissible for a charity to promote a particular pre-determined point of view".

Excellent article, Breadandbutterfly.

Goodnightmoon, the way I understand it, large companies pay the lobbyists to persuade the government to bring in policies that are advantageous to them (eg tobacco companies might pay lobbyists to persuade ministers to cut tax on cigarettes). And the point is that these companies try to hide who they are and what they do, so that the public is not aware of how much influence they are able to buy have over the government. The government try to hide it too, but I'm not sure why. Maybe they feel the electorate will think they are weak if they agree to the demands of the lobbyists. Or maybe they get paid - the odd holiday in Tuscany, the odd Meditteranean cruise?

I understand that MPs might not be experts in all areas, but what they need is impartial advice, surely, on what is best for the greatest number of people. They shouldn't be doing what one company or group wants them to do just because they have more money to pay clever lobbyists and are more powerful. Where's the democracy in that?

but don't officials currently have to declare such payments/freebies on the MP register or whatever?

I don't know - I think so, because of the Freedom of Information Act. But private companies aren't subject to the same scrutiny, as it says in the article. Does that mean the lobbyists don't have to tell the government who is paying them?

Can a government minister own shares in a company that then pays a lobbyist to lobby himself???

Can a government minister own shares in a company that then pays a lobbyist to lobby himself???

In theory no however your shares can be put in a "blind trust" which in theory you dont know about and if you believe that then I have a great car to sell to you.

Ooer. They're clever little blighters aren't they? So much time and trouble spent trying to get rich and hide the sources of their wealth ... Imagine if they applied themselves to running the country, or even to putting something back into the society that has been so generous towards them.

We can dream, I suppose.

The Times is reporting today that plans are afoot for a compulsory register for all organisations that seek to influence government policy, including trade unions, think tanks and charities - to be published next month.

I agree that we need transparency but it seems wrong to impose another layer of red tape on charitable organisations.

Good. But a register is no good if they are still above and beyond the reach of the Freedom of Info Act.

Agree about the red tape. In any case, I think they need to differentiate between the different types of charities.

The ones that help children/old people/send aid overseas, etc, should be allowed to send little angels to sit on the shoulder of the minister, to act as his/her conscience.

However, the 'charities' that are set up to help rich people hide their money and/or get richer, should only be able to send those horrid sticky lizardy-type things that stick to the ceiling when you throw them hard enough. They are really strong, and stay attached for years. I'm looking at one now. Reminds me of someone I saw coming out of Downing Street ...

good article i agree, it won't work though as everyone is feeling poor right now and not feeling the benefit of anything.

goodbye tories, hope not to see you again for another cpl of decades.

good. THe government has to hide this because it's not legitimate. We don't elect corporations, therefore if they are influencing the government in backhanded ways then the policies are illegitimate.. i.e it's not a democracy.