Oh Dear - he's gone and trumped them all!

[Cheshirechappie]

I think there's a significant difference between the open funding of political parties - giving them funds to spend as they see fit - (donations over a certain sum must be declared and entered on a public register in the UK - I don't know about the US) and the closed, behind-the-scenes buying of influence by lobbying. There's no public register of such transactions, so there's no way of knowing whether an ex-politician meeting with a current minister is doing so as public service or as a hired hand unless he declares on who's behalf he's talking, and how much he's being paid - and they often don't, I gather.

This is worth a read - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_ ... ed_Kingdom

The lobbying industry in the UK employs 14,000 people and is worth an estimated £1.9billion a year, apparently. :shock:

It's even worse in the EU - this is from the Wiki entry for 'Lobbying - Definition'

European Union[edit]


Wikimania 2009, results of the discussion about possible contents of European lobbying
With the Enlargement of the European Union in 2004, lobbying practices have taken a further step, bringing in not only a lot more players and stakeholders but a wide range of different political cultures and traditions, as well.[citation needed] According to Austrian Member of the European Parliament ("MEP") Hans-Peter Martin, the value of lobby invitations and offers each individual MEP receives can reach up to €10,000 per week.[17]
In 2003 there were around 15,000 lobbyists (consultants, lawyers, associations, corporations, NGOs etc.) in Brussels seeking to influence the EU’s legislation. Some 2,600 special interest groups had a permanent office in Brussels. Their distribution was roughly as follows: European trade federations (32%), consultants (20%), companies (13%), NGOs (11%), national associations (10%), regional representations (6%), international organizations (5%) and think tanks (1%), (Lehmann, 2003, pp iii).[18][19]
The fragmented nature of the EU's institutional structure provides multiple channels through which organized interests may seek to influence policymaking. Lobbying takes place at the European level itself and within the existing national states.[citation needed] The most important institutional targets are the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament.[20] The Commission has a monopoly on the initiative in Community decision-making. Since it has the power to draft initiatives, it makes it ideally suited as an arena for interest representation.[citation needed]

 

[finneyb]

I think there's a significant difference between the open funding of political parties - giving them funds to spend as they see fit - (donations over a certain sum must be declared and entered on a public register in the UK - I don't know about the US) and the closed, behind-the-scenes buying of influence by lobbying. There's no public register of such transactions, so there's no way of knowing whether an ex-politician meeting with a current minister is doing so as public service or as a hired hand unless he declares on who's behalf he's talking, and how much he's being paid - and they often don't, I gather.

This is worth a read - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_ ... ed_Kingdom

The lobbying industry in the UK employs 14,000 people and is worth an estimated £1.9billion a year, apparently. :shock:

It's even worse in the EU - this is from the Wiki entry for 'Lobbying - Definition'
European Union[edit]



Wikimania 2009, results of the discussion about possible contents of European lobbying
With the Enlargement of the European Union in 2004, lobbying practices have taken a further step, bringing in not only a lot more players and stakeholders but a wide range of different political cultures and traditions, as well.[citation needed] According to Austrian Member of the European Parliament ("MEP") Hans-Peter Martin, the value of lobby invitations and offers each individual MEP receives can reach up to €10,000 per week.[17]
In 2003 there were around 15,000 lobbyists (consultants, lawyers, associations, corporations, NGOs etc.) in Brussels seeking to influence the EU’s legislation. Some 2,600 special interest groups had a permanent office in Brussels. Their distribution was roughly as follows: European trade federations (32%), consultants (20%), companies (13%), NGOs (11%), national associations (10%), regional representations (6%), international organizations (5%) and think tanks (1%), (Lehmann, 2003, pp iii).[18][19]
The fragmented nature of the EU's institutional structure provides multiple channels through which organized interests may seek to influence policymaking. Lobbying takes place at the European level itself and within the existing national states.[citation needed] The most important institutional targets are the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament.[20] The Commission has a monopoly on the initiative in Community decision-making. Since it has the power to draft initiatives, it makes it ideally suited as an arena for interest representation.[citation needed]

BUT, we need industry, charities, trade *** etc to influence govt otherwise we get legislation that is designed by civil servants for politicians - that would create havoc. Its a fine balance between influence and too much influence. Perhaps the answer is to identify the areas of extreme influence and set the rules to sort them out, leaving the acceptable influence to have a beneficial effect .

Brian

 

[Cheshirechappie]

So it's OK for corporations and NGOs with large bank balances to (effectively) buy legislation that suits them? That's what's happening.

 

[RossJarvis]

So it's OK for corporations and NGOs with large bank balances to (effectively) buy legislation that suits them? That's what's happening.

It's a difficult one, generally the group with the higher resources usually wins. I'm not sure what the balance of lobbying to government going out to fact find and consult is, if there is any balance.

If government policy solely relies on listening to those beating at its doors then the whole system is quite alarmingly knackered. In addition I presume the government uses all sorts of research and fact finding, independent of the lobbyists, to help influence decisions. Not that I'd expect them to be able to do that very well.

 

[finneyb]

So it's OK for corporations and NGOs with large bank balances to (effectively) buy legislation that suits them? That's what's happening.

In most cases there will be a balance of lobbying eg 38 degrees, environmental groups etc will provide the opposing view to industry giving the civil servant/politician the facts to consider the issue in the round.

A major issue in my opinion is the financial sector where there is little consumer lobbying - take the Pensions Regulator who allegedly has a duty to protect the scheme member - in reality PR doesn't and sells out the scheme member without the scheme member knowing because in PR's opinion scheme members are NOT ' directly affected parties' but of course the Employers are. Works & Pensions Select Committee looking at this now.

I have no doubt that PR has been one-side lobbied, and bought it lock, stock and barrel.

Brian

 

[Cheshirechappie]

So it's OK for corporations and NGOs with large bank balances to (effectively) buy legislation that suits them? That's what's happening.

It's a difficult one, generally the group with the higher resources usually wins. I'm not sure what the balance of lobbying to government going out to fact find and consult is, if there is any balance.

If government policy solely relies on listening to those beating at its doors then the whole system is quite alarmingly knackered. In addition I presume the government uses all sorts of research and fact finding, independent of the lobbyists, to help influence decisions. Not that I'd expect them to be able to do that very well.

Our favourite economist, again;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JPm2nPfz7M

Worth listening to the whole thing, but he mentions 'trade agreements' at about 2mins 15secs and onwards - and specifically, who had input to their draughting.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

In most cases there will be a balance of lobbying eg 38 degrees, environmental groups etc will provide the opposing view to industry giving the civil servant/politician the facts to consider the issue in the round.
Brian

Lobbying isn't about facts. It's about influencing legislation in your interests - if you can afford it.

Edit to add - An example. Remember all the fuss about banning incandescent light bulbs? The reason given was that it would save the planet by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, wasn't it? Did anybody seriously buy that one? Did Hilary Benn even believe the guff he was spouting at the time?

It was because bulb manufacturers make a far better profit on low-energy bulbs (five quid a pop) than they do on old-fashioned incandescents (50p a pop), and they somehow managed to lobby Brussels to legislate in their favour, that's why. If you were a minister looking to reduce C02 emissions, would you even bother about light bulbs unprompted, or go after heavy industry and power stations?

 

[Jacob]

Today the DM is blaming immigrants for the murder of Joe Cox MP

Quote: "Thomas Mair may have murdered MP Jo Cox because he feared losing his home of 40 years to an immigrant family."

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Here are Daniel Hannan's rather more level-headed thoughts on the media hoo-ha about Jo Cox's murderer;

https://capx.co/no-david-aaronovitch-co ... good-idea/

 

[MIGNAL]

In most cases there will be a balance of lobbying eg 38 degrees, environmental groups etc will provide the opposing view to industry giving the civil servant/politician the facts to consider the issue in the round.
Brian

Lobbying isn't about facts. It's about influencing legislation in your interests - if you can afford it.

Edit to add - An example. Remember all the fuss about banning incandescent light bulbs? The reason given was that it would save the planet by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, wasn't it? Did anybody seriously buy that one? Did Hilary Benn even believe the guff he was spouting at the time?

It was because bulb manufacturers make a far better profit on low-energy bulbs (five quid a pop) than they do on old-fashioned incandescents (50p a pop), and they somehow managed to lobby Brussels to legislate in their favour, that's why. If you were a minister looking to reduce C02 emissions, would you even bother about light bulbs unprompted, or go after heavy industry and power stations?

Although to be fair Brussels were hardly the first to implement bans of incandescents. This is another of those that gets firmly put at the feet of the EU when in fact many (most?) governments around the world were imposing restrictions or bans on incandescents. I think Australia (of all places) and Brazil were quicker off the mark.

 

[Jacob]

Low energy bulbs use about 1/5th of the energy of same light output incandescents. They are also supposed to last a lot longer but I'm not so sure about that.
So yes they do save energy and could be cheaper in the long run.
But - saving money isn't the objective - it's more than likely that a lot of energy saving measure will increase costs, but that's the price we will have to pay as we move away from fossil fuels.

I've got a 3 watt LED lighting up my front yard - just enough to be useful. Previously a 150 watt bulb was thought to be OK. So that's a vast reduction in energy, slight increase in cost of the bulb, big reduction in light output to a level which is just adequate. This is the future and these little details are all part of the big picture.

 

[RobinBHM]

It also has a lot to do with the development of the technology.

LED bulbs, bulbs and dimmer technology has moved on a lot in the last year or so.

I used to offer LED downlighters as an upgrade for an orangery as they were quite a lot more than halogen, but now just do them as standard.

For an average orangery there is a worthwhile difference between say 12 x 50 watt GU10 bulbs compared to 12 x 9 watt LEDs, almost 500 watts less. I dontknow about reliability but halogen bulbs dont exactly last long.

I recently replaced 10 candle shaped bulbs from halogen incandescent to dimmable LED. The LED are excellent, they are dimmable all the way down to almost nothing, no flickering and even have a mock filament in them. The latest dimmer switches come with trailing and leading edge circuitry options for differing bulb options.

Of course it wont save money, it will help to hold off the constant energy hikes though! No doubt Im paying for all you people with over generous feed in tariffs guaranteed until 2099

 

[MIGNAL]

The oldest LED bulb that I have is just over 2 years, I think. Obviously I placed it in the room that saw the most use of any light bulb. It's still working. I've yet to have one that has failed but they are all under 2 years, so still early days.
The few incandescents that I have are all in places that see very little use. I'm not really bothered about replacing them, although one day I may have to.

 

[RogerS]

.... Even the boring IT press write absolute tosh about whats happening on Government projects overspending. ...

Not all the time, Bob, having managed several large Govt IT projects ! I got to some other projects - warts and all. The IT press are pretty close to the mark most of the time.

I will tell you an anecdote regarding Blair's NHS White Elephant...you remember, the one that was going to join everything together, online blah blah etc. He called a meeting of experienced IT people and I mean experienced. He asked them how long would it take. The general consensus was five to ten years. "Oh, that's far too long," said Blair "I want it done in two". "Can't be done" they all said. So Blair kept on looking until he found someone willing to get up on their hind legs, tongue hanging out saying "Me Sir...Me Sir...I can do it, Sir". The rest is, as they say, history.

Nice desert story, BTW...that must have been a hoot.

 

[Jacob]

Here are Daniel Hannan's rather more level-headed thoughts on the media hoo-ha about Jo Cox's murderer;

https://capx.co/no-david-aaronovitch-co ... good-idea/

Hannan is wrong - there is a collective guilt.
OK he's completely mad but it's quite likely that Mair would be triggered by the distinct air of threatening aggression coming from parts of the Brexit camp.
From Farage himself ("trouble in the streets", planning a march etc) and in general - even on this thread:

... that are creating discord by wilfully seeking to undermine the democratic decisions both here and in the USA. It is a dangerous game to play and sets a precedent that the socialists may come to regret.

He is telling us that normal democratic discussion is ".. playing a dangerous game".

 

[Inoffthered]

Today the DM is blaming immigrants for the murder of Joe Cox MP

Quote: "Thomas Mair may have murdered MP Jo Cox because he feared losing his home of 40 years to an immigrant family."

The DM States "Thomas Mair may have murdered MP Jo Cox because he feared losing his home of 40 years to an immigrant family."

Jacob says "Today the DM is blaming immigrants for the murder of Joe Cox MP"

...a bit of a logic gap there I suggest although one of your earlier posts sought to link Jo Cox's murder and the DM and its readers so you clearly have an axe to grind.

The politicisation of Cox's murder was/is one of the more despicable acts of the Remain campaign. The same crowd that, when an atrocity committed by followers of the religion of peace say " nothing to do Islam" are apparently desperate to find a way of pinning the murder of Cox onto UKIP/DM readers/anyone that voted leave (or swivelled eyed loons). Resorting to this type of tactic merely highlights the total absence of a cohesive argument hence resorting to character assassinations and name calling. Sad really.

It is interesting that various MSM interviewers who have failed to better Milo Yiannopoulos, now label anything associated with the alt-right as being Nazi; just more name calling for the same reasons as above but after Brexit and the US elections how long will it take before people realise it is not a winning strategy. You know the definition of stupidity, do the same thing while expecting a different result.

 

[Jacob]

....
The politicisation of Cox's murder was/is one of the more despicable acts of the Remain campaign. .....

Cox's murder was politicised by Mair himself - Mair shouted “Britain First, this is for Britain” before shooting her. Fairly clear and unambiguous. NB there is a political organisation called "Britain First" - maybe you didn't know.

 

[Inoffthered]

....
The politicisation of Cox's murder was/is one of the more despicable acts of the Remain campaign. .....

Cox's murder was politicised by Mair himself - Mair shouted “Britain First, this is for Britain” before shooting her. Fairly clear and unambiguous. NB there is a political organisation called "Britain First" - maybe you didn't know.

Now now, don't patronise.
Did he say Britain First or Britain first? There is a difference but you clearly have a much better handle on the motives and it is the fault of all horrid people that voted Brexit or who read the DM (It is still a matter of surprise that despite the murder the majority of people still voted for Brexit, even in Cox's constituency.)

It is interesting to compare and contrast how some parties try to pin blame for Cox's murder at the door of DM readers / Brexit supporters yet when members of the religion of peace torture and massacre 130 innocent concert goers the same voices say "nothing to do with Islam".

 

[Jacob]

There is a huge degree of hostility and veiled/overt threats emanating from parts of the Brexit camp. You gave us one yourself:

... that are creating discord by wilfully seeking to undermine the democratic decisions both here and in the USA. It is a dangerous game to play and sets a precedent that the socialists may come to regret.

Not "pinning the blame" on the whole camp, but it's glaringly obvious that Mair would be influenced by this sort of stuff. It wasn't just a coincidence.
No doubt there are also trump supporters out there polishing their AK47s and just waiting for the chance to use them.
Things have taken a nasty turn.

He was a closet nazi and brexiter by all accounts, he murdered an anti brexit MP, he shouted Britain First. Do you really think he was protesting about Britain's place in the eurovision song contest or something else?

 

[MIGNAL]

Why on earth are they undermining the democratic decision of the USA inoffthered? Clinton won the popular vote, not Trump. Trump is now already rolling back on his key promises. The only person undermining the will of the people is the person that they put in office: Trump. He got elected on a completely false mandate. He's conned the electorate.