Here’s your starter for ten in our weekend slot where we throw up an idea or thought for debate…
It has been a week of scandal surrounding the lobbying industry, with The Independent publishing a series of stories based around the claims of the lobbying firm Bell Pottinger to be able to influence government policy.
The consultants at Bell Pottinger made claims to undercover reporters that they had already influenced government policy and could do so again for a fee. The government initially responded by saying these claims were rubbish but later conceded that lobbying from companies did have some impact.
So who’s right? Does lobbying work or is it a waste of time and money? And if it does work is this undermining our democracy or a fair way for organisations to help get their views heard?
Post your comments below…
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
My tweets
Ladden Gardens Play Area Fiasco
A review of the latest Lib Dem Party Political Broadcast
Aqua Marine & Aquamarine – Tunes that get stuck in my head by Santana & 3rd Force
A new threat to community cohesion?
Getting things done - Roseangle #dundeewestend
Big swing to Lib Dems as Conservatives hold Middlesbrough seat
1917 *****
Six of the Best 910
Peter Hirst
Christopher Curtis
Frank West
Nigel Jones
Barry Lofty
3 Comments
Of course lobbying works. It would be appalling if it didn’t. “Lobbying” is merely the act of seeking to attempt to pursuade somebody (in this context an MP) to share the “lobbyist’s” view on something. It would be a sad day if MPs became deaf to the entreaties of other members of society.
Assuming that the concern here is about professional lobbyists, however, we should acknowledge that this is a natural function of the divison of labour: just as we have professional advocates in legal cases (lawyers), professional advocates in employment issues (unions) and professional advocates in disputes with public sector bodies (often run by charities for specific groups within society that struggle to get their voice heard), so it is natural that we would have professional advocates for political matters.
The only point at which this should be considered worrying is if there is evidence of opinion/action being bought, but I doubt that Bell Pottinger or any other lobbying firm was saying that.
[In the interests of full disclosure, I have previously worked for a charity, lobbying government in respect of early years policy]
Yes. Plus, I heard of one group of lobbyists that got local people to write to government and other public authorities demanding changes to how various services are delivered. The group knocked on doors soliciting support from residents, put a lot of promotional materials through doors and was always in the local papers. It used to brag about how it had got the council to be more supportive of the local football team. The group in question was a Lib Dem Focus Team.
Lobbies exist, therefore a professional industry of lobbyists is inevitable.
However the professionals have an unfair advantage to gain access by exploiting the division of opportunity, leading to a motivation to maintain inequality in order to protect their industry and which results in widespread exclusion through the creation of insiders and outsiders.
With a functioning system of checks and balances the creation of new statutory requirements could easily ensure that official consultations both go beyond the lobby into the fresh air of the real world and maximise public contributions. That should mean extending democracy by developing a wider realm of institutional bodies to ensure proportional representativeness across all layers of society.
Additionally this would provide the means to resolve the constitutional problem of choosing appropriate election systems, which much of the expensive and wasteful lobbying compensates for.
The dirty practices of lobbyists simply expose our imperfect democracy.