Not So Lobbying Crosby

I think Labour's new scapegoat is Lynton Crosby, although arguably this isn't new looking back on how many times Ken Livingstone kept mentioning Lynton Crosby in the London Mayoral Elections. Labour are picking out policy moves from the government out of a hat and blaming Lynton Crosby for lobbying. Of course there is no evidence for this and thus in all likelihood isn't true.

Lynton Crosby's face is not yet known so he has to carry a caption around with him always.

This all started with the delays in government policy over plain cigarette packaging and minimum alcohol pricing. Labour said "aha, this is because Lynton Crosby also works for a tobacco company and is thus lobbying the Prime Minister." However, there is no evidence for that at all. The Labour Party are just finding casual links. Nick Clegg, the PM, Lynton Crosby, the Conservative Party and virtually everyone except Red Ed have said that there has been no lobbying. Indeed it is more likely, that if there was any lobbying it was from Ken Clarke who is actually in the government, works for tobacco firms and is well known to like a drink.

 Maybe Ken Clarke is the one lobbying the government, if that is happening at all.

There are many alternative ideas to Labour's ripping open a live kid goat thesis on plain packaging and alcohol pricing. Let's say Lynton Crosby is involved in the decision to ditch the cigarette and beer policies. It could be because as Lynton says "he is getting rid of the barnacles off the boat." These policies could be seen as negative to the electorate and not on beat with his proposed message for the Conservatives in 2015 and is thus ditching them. Personally I don't see this as very likely considering how awfully in favour Dave is in limiting people's choices of late.

The Government's reason for having the delays is to see the results of what is going on in Australia and in Scotland may be what is going on. This makes most logical sense considering all these new policies are so new in implementation we don't know yet if this actually is a benefit to health. It may not be and thus cheesing off ordinary people is not necessary.

And on cheesing off it could be that the Government have decided that they don't like this idea. This is actually consistent with what Labour say. For all their hot air over plain cigarette packaging and minimum alcohol pricing all previous Labour Health Secretaries think it would be a disaster (seefor the full details http://order-order.com/2013/07/13/labour-ministers-opposed-plain-packaging/ ). Andy Burnham, Labour Shadow Secretary State for Health,  has said "No studies have shown that introducing plain packaging of tobacco products would cut the number of young people smoking .... we would need strong and convincing evidence showing the health benefits of this policy before it would be acceptable."

Then we move into the manifest absurdities which make up the twisted logic of Labour Central Office. They're now saying Lynton Crosby was responsible for the 'privatisation of the NHS' in the early stages of the government. Just ignore for the moment the stupidity of not using facts, the NHS hasn't been privatised. Indeed Lynton after the general election did get employed by a health company but wasn't employed by the Conservatives till November 2012, not starting till January 2013. But the Health and Social Care Act received Royal Assent in March 2012 so Lynton couldn't possibly be lobbying for the non-'privatisation of the NHS' because he wasn't anywhere near the government till almost a year after it was passed. Unless Red Ed believes Lynton Crosby has invented a time machine then I think he should take a look at his brain and try reassemble the lobes to try form a coherent argument. 

I actually feel a bit for Lynton Crosby. The Labour Party say he is the most evil being since Satan himself, but even if that were true he is being wrongly targeted. It's quite clear Labour are either victims of their own poor policies on education, and thus have no logic, or are just causing trouble. And they are doing this probably because they are running around with arms waving in the air panicking about a diminishing poll lead. 

The logical lunatics have taken over the Asylum (other wise known as Red Ed's brain).

An Observation on Lobbying

What is it with all these lobbying scandals at the moment? First Patrick Mercer MP and now Lord Laird have been accused of lobbying for some sort of payment, breaking parliamentary rules. No offence to the experienced political life of Lord Laird and Patrick Mercer, but don't they remember the cash for questions scandal? Perhaps not.

Patrick Mercer is MP for Newark and I was surprised to see him involved in a lobbying scandal. 

I actually met Patrick Mercer a few months back at the Gedling Victory Night and was surprised to see this story arise. He seemed a very competent and knowledgeable MP when it came to defence and foreign affairs. However clearly something was going on behind the scenes that was not quite right as he has had to resign from being a Tory MP.

So what is to be done, as Lenin once said? Well lobbyist will always follow the power and politicians will always be tempted by money. We need to really separate lobbyists and politicians from one another because the result is not just the odd early day motion in a company's favour. One of the reasons we have problems with big companies is that they buy favours in the political world to help them increase profits. But the population are the losers in this as this overcomes the power of competition so they have to pay more money for things.

Patrick Mercer MP signing the deal with the secret Panorama team.

We could regulate lobbying a lot more in Parliament. I am no expert on the lobbying laws of this country so I will have to look at each proposed law to see if it is an improvement. However I think something more profound needs to happen.

All political parties are running out of money essentially. Why so? because membership is decreasing and also revenue from events as a consequence. Nor are individuals rich party members able to fill the gap this leaves. Instead all political parties are allowing business, charities and other organisation to give increasing amounts of money for some sort of favour. Lobbying doesn't necessarily have to be a breach of parliamentary rules. You can see the amount lobbyists at Conferences and London events. A good example for me was earlier this year at the Jeremy Hunt CF reception. He answered a few questions from the audience and those who were picked, probably by chance, happened to be asking very specific questions on the NHS from people representing companies. I.E. Lobbyists have been chasing Jeremy Hunt around, and been allowed to, even at seemingly private CF events.

Jeremy Hunt has been lobbied by the Jazz Society of UK and now has to do Jazz hands to the camera's every time he walks into Number 10. 

Why have political parties switched to lobbyist money? It is because they fail to connect with their voters and so they won't give them any donations or help. Not good for democracy inside or outside political parties. In fact it makes me fairly upset because, taking the example above, we were not allowed speak to a senior party official, despite it being our party.

The decline in Party membership. Major falls happened for the Tories in the 1960s and just after Thatcher left office.

I don't think political parties will soon return to the day of the 1950s were almost everyone in the UK was seemingly a party member. But I think we need to move back to the voters. That way political parties connect well with the public, reduce corruption and also make money which is needed to fight elections. Reduce the role of the lobbyist for a better government.