Maybe we should discuss this first of all?
My understanding is “affecting of – or attempting to affect – the actions/decisions of the public sector by the private sector”. Clumsy I know but it’s a starting point for discussion.
The publication Lobbying: Access and influence in Whitehall by the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (First Report of Session 2008–09) has some good insights on how things work at the moment. It’s a bit heavy and 2.2MB download but if you can just read enough to get the gist of I think you should.
Economist Thomas Sowell defends corporate lobbying as “simply an example of a group having better knowledge of its interests than the people at large do of theirs.” (from Wikipedia)
So, people at large, are you happy with that? my response is post62′s old moniker!
Contact your local elected officials - for free
by kooltidings
02 Feb 2009 at 08:26
Hi
Having had a quick glance at the report the need to look at lobbying again was mainly driven by the fact that public confidence in UK government minister is falling, with an association to personal gain more than anything else. I suppose the business with the Lords over the last couple of weeks will not help
There is a job description/status etc that can be found there. All is pretty much self explanatory
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Explore_types_of_jobs/Types_of_Job/p!eipaL?state=showocc&idno=253&pageno=1
Point 1 says a lobby group wants to influence political decision. With such a huge array of decision that needs ‘influencing’ we may be need in the first instance need to all jot down what we would need to achieve with the Lobby group,
On another hand, are we trying to first gauge an ‘as true as possible’ imprint of the mood of the nation?
At the moment there is a big channel of anger/frustration that appears very obviously when looking at RP’s blogs and I think a lot of us know we are being taken for a ride. This sorry episode may in fact be some kind of starting point towards the end of the political parties, as and when reports get published we can see the findings are all resulting of the life that has been encouraged over the last 10-20 years (see the report published about children’s welfare today). After Thatcher’s sharks, we have been let down (may be even more) by Labour.
The real question thus become do we have it ‘in us’ to really change things?
It is obvious to most of us that the gap between the politicians and the general public has become so huge. We don’t talk the same language, we don’t appear to have the same values, whoever we vote for they will lie to use so why bothering to vote?
We are being talked to/patronised/explained in terms that bears no resemblance whatsoever with any of our day to day conversations, we can all talk about what is going on, we do not need to all go to Davos to do this, we live it every day.
Can the mood of the nation/anger and frustration energy be channelled into something positive that will go beyond party politics
I have lived in the UK for over 20 years now, this has become my home, my kids are English. The Wildcat strikes that started last week are something that is to me so surprisingly un-British (as to the reasons why it is a completely different debate). I am noticing some changes in the moods and attitudes. Have you noticed some changes from your distance John?
Phew, sorry about the long post
by John Bray
02 Feb 2009 at 08:58
kooltidings,
Thanks for your thoughts.
With the job description link you gave I think that only the third paragraph is relevant to us.
Two points stand out from this report to me:
1: the government would like to regulate lobbying. This is something they could do at short notice and, in that case, anonymity for group members might be out of the question.
2: Would it be legally (or ethically) ok for ANY public servant to be a member of this lobby group?
Got to go off for a bit now. will get back onto it later on.
by John Bray
02 Feb 2009 at 09:46
kooltidings, (continued)
“are we trying to first gauge an ‘as true as possible’ imprint of the mood of the nation?”
To me, that’s for the members to decide. Personally I think we should just decide what we think needs changing and get on and try to change it. The mood of the nation got us to here we are now.
“Can the mood of the nation/anger and frustration energy be channelled into something positive that will go beyond party politics?”
We can only try?!
There are some comments on “some changes from your distance” on the “Pain in Spain” post (also requested by Friendlycard).
John
by Goldtop
02 Feb 2009 at 15:38
Kooltidings-
>we may be need in the first instance…to all >jot down what we would need to achieve with the >Lobby group…On another hand, are we trying to >first gauge an ‘as true as possible’ imprint of >the mood of the nation?
Speaking personally, I am not sure what I want to achieve yet and I am also not sure what is within the realms of possibility. Put simply, why would the government be willing to operate in accordance with the will of the people (or at least some of them) now? As JB says, the mood of the nation is plenty obvious, but it may take someone to be able to articulate it successfully. Perhaps that could be a function here.
For myself, I just stumbled across the RP blog and found myself in agreement with a lot of the opinions. I guess I'm like the Peter Finch character in the film Network- I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore.
I guess the first task could be to draft some kind of agenda or 'mission statement'. I'm going to go away and consider what is making me mad as hell and go from there…
by Jericoa
02 Feb 2009 at 16:08
I am feling quite relaxed about an agenda for now.
First things first.
I think it is more important we round up those interested and if they dont mind telling us a little of themselves it will help to build a bit of comaradery between us (I think someone else has already suggested that here also).
I think we will probably find that the next step of the ‘who’ and the ‘what’ will fall naturally out of that process when we are ready.
For me the final goal would be to produce something to hold a mirror up to G20 in some kind of parallel format.
To do something coherent we will need to harness whatever particular skills each of us has.
We will need people to research the G20 format and schedule of events and announcements and consider our responses to them.
We will need people to find out the best means to promote our work to the media to give it some attension.
We will need people who know a lot about finance to talk in the language of finance and give our lobby credibility in that department.
and so on.
As I say, until we know who we have it is hard to know who does what next.
In the meantime, lets just all get to know each other and include details of what area you feel you may be strongest to contribute in.
I will add to my profile accordingly now.
Jericoa
by rahere
02 Feb 2009 at 16:27
The Civil Service Code is explicit in encouraging a degree of political involvement, as long as it does not compromise the Civil Service’s neutrality in any way – watch the Damian/Galley case with care, as although there is every indication there may be insufficient evidence to prosecute Damian Green, David Davis (a former SAS officer) has complained that the police continue to abuse Parliament, and you should not therefore expect them to respect your own interpretation of the legal rights of the ordinary individual. It is to be recalled that Davis holds a considerable number of dossiers concerning this government, a large number of which he has withheld as they may destroy the democratic system.
by rahere
02 Feb 2009 at 16:58
As far as lobbying is concerned, an MP’s work is – if done correctly – onerous. He is expected to deliver an informed brief from Monday to Thursday, has Friday to travel back to his constituency, Saturday for constituency surgeries, and Sunday to return. His briefs have to be absorbed while travelling, and speeches prepared while shaving. MPs for the Home Counties have an easier time of it, but they also tend to have larger constituencies.
Consequently, an MP’s viewpoint is bounded by his staff, vetting the letters he gets to handle, his surgeries, and what he gets to hear from the press, which as you have seen is not necessaruily objective. Indeed, to be fair to Bob, his postings have been more representative than is my general experience of the Press, who can be counted on to spin, traduce, misquote and malign to their heart’s content – and that’s the best of them, there are some who openly fabricate and lie in their stories.
As the average MP does not therefore get to hear the specialist opinions of those whose lives he may be directly affecting, for good or ill, in industries and other social undertakings for which he is responsible, the Lobby system exists to allow such specialists to represent themselves, often via specialist channels. A Governmental report dating from December outlines the way in which this is may develop, and provides a number of hooks by which you may be able to help improve matters.
That being said, the professional bodies do also lend a number of specialist representatives to sit on Governmental Select Committees as coopted members, some of whom spend almost as much time on the things as the MPs who are members do.
As an interim approach, I think you might do worse than to contact David Davis’ blog, as for all that he is a conservative, he is possibly one of the few self-made men (recalling that his father was a communist and that he worked his way from sleeping rough to a senior shadow ministerial position) to have voluntarily demonstrated his commitment to probity by destroying himself to refresh his mandate.
by ed iglehart
02 Feb 2009 at 18:00
Rahere, Good words, good advice, and I concur on Davis. He meets my conditions
by John Bray
03 Feb 2009 at 00:33
As for me, most is available via the follower button and my website apart from politics: I have never belonged to any political party and don't vote (it only encourages them). It's not really a democracy if you can't vote not to have a government
) I despise all politicians equally and so could be said to be neutral.
Though I'll take Rahere's advice and look up David Davis. Something not mentioned anywhere publicly, until now, is that I am ex-Army and so would tend to naturally trust someone else who was.
by rahere
03 Feb 2009 at 03:28
John
Idem, light green reserve but stopped before I joined Nairac, although I’m still not far from such – you never really escape them. DD was a PC in 21SAS, and I have a number of friends in and around the Lines.
by John Bray
03 Feb 2009 at 08:31
rahere, the world is full of coincidences.
by rahere
03 Feb 2009 at 15:10
Can I break this thread and share some more procedural thoughts, please. The arch-priest of okkardness, Tony Benn, enounced some fundamental thoughts on democracy which should pass through your minds whenever supping with a long spoon:
Whenever you meet a powerful person ask him these five questions:
What power have you got?
Where did you get it from?
In whose interests do you use it?
To whom are you accountable?
How can we get rid of you?
Research every name you come across, record your notes, and seek the hidden connections. The world of politics is small, and they all to some extent or another are in each others’ pockets. That simply means they cooperate normally, except when their idea of cooperation becomes a bit ideosyncratic. Take pairing as an example. Each established MP has his “pair”, another MP of the other party who has broadly similar interests (even if of different opinions) and who will be willing to absent himself if asked during a vote when his pair is unavoidably detained on other business. That way they do not distort the outcome and both can progress more important business than acting as voting fodder in the way more junior government backbenchers are forced to, not having a pair as the result of the size of the government majority.
by Jericoa
03 Feb 2009 at 15:16
Rahere,
Facinating insight into the life of an MP. Like the pinball in a pinball machine, few of them are dancing to their own tune it seems.
Respect to David Davis, his stand was brave yet largely ridiculed in the media. That is just superficial though, his stand will ultimately be remembered for the right reasons I think as the context that surrounds his actions shift, his integrity will remain firm.
by Albion
05 Feb 2009 at 12:50
It strikes me as a touch ironic that the general populous should consider the need to set up a lobby group to attempt to influence the political process – we should hardly be categorised as specialists!
Rahere – Interesting stuff. I concur with David Davis too – one of the seemingly few politicians remaining with a commitment to integrity.
Jericoa – The party system of politics is a big part of the problem IMO.