In simple terms, paid lobbying puts the interests of those paying ahead of the interests of the electorate whom our politicians are elected to represent.
The solution I proposed can be found here.
But simply, it amounts to this:
- Write a statute criminalising lobbying by business, unions, charities, and other interest groups
- Launch a petition to collect 1+ million signatures demanding parliament enacts the anti-lobbying statute
- Present the statue to parliament for enactment
My position is simple. All lobbying should be a criminal offence carrying a mandatory prison sentence, not just for those who attempt to lobby Parliament, but also for anyone who fails to report that they are being lobbied in an attempt to change government policy.
This morning however, I have read a post on the Occupy St Paul's website, which instead of calling for the criminalisation of lobbying, merely calls for transparency. But even worse, it only calls for transparency for corporate lobbying, i.e. lobbying carried out by business. Indeed, the word 'corporate' appears 14 times in the post, and 'corporate lobbying' appears five times.
Given that lobbying is so corrosive to the political process, it is astonishing that occupy St Paul's is not calling for it's criminalisation.
It is also worth noting that the largest lobbyists in the UK are unions, so it is surprising that union lobbying is not mentioned at all in the Occupy St Paul's post. In fact the word 'union' does not appear once in the post.
This raises some interesting points. Firstly, bearing in mind that it has been proven that unions are telling the Labour Party how to vote in parliament, there can be no doubt the unions are interfering in the political process.
Secondly, either you believe that lobbying is, in principle acceptable, or it is not. It cannot be acceptable for one private lobbying operation to continue lobbying whilst you condemn another private lobbying organisation. That would be hypocritical.
Thirdly, the fact that unions are not mentioned in the post all, raises uncomfortable questions about the impartiality of Occupy St Paul's, and their relationship to the unions.
Ukuncut was fatally compromised when they took money from unions to lobby to change government policy. It ceased to be impartial. It ceased to be a movement of the people, and became merely a union funded front. It is notable that UKuncut has all but disappeared as an independent entity.
It appears that Occupy St Paul's is following a similar arc to that of UKuncut. Occupy St Paul's has joined forces with UKuncut, and has also received money from unions. Furthermore, Occupy St Paul's has being addressed by at least one union leader, and it's outreach teams are building links with trade unions. Indeed, union representatives have recently addressed Occupy St Paul's to thank them for their support for the November 30th strike.
The question is simply this: Has Occupy St Paul's been compromised by its close links to the unions and by accepting union money?
It certainly appears to be the case to me. How else would you explain their silence about union lobbying? How else would you explain their fervent support for the November 30 strike? How else would you explain their repeated attacks online on anyone who questions their links to the unions?
The claim that occupy St Paul's is the 'new way', seem to be giving way to to a takeover by the Left and the unions.
Occupy St Paul's would do well to remember, that the Left was swept from power in 2010, and that the Left were funded by unions. It seems to me that Occupy St Paul's no longer represents the so-called 99%, but instead represents the interests of the Left who was so comprehensively ejected from power.
Contact your Fat Councillor with interesting facts and tip offs here
