SpinWatch

Nicholas Jones

15 May, 2012 

Alastair Campbell has rarely missed an opportunity to launch a demolition job on journalism and in the second round of his evidence to the Leveson Inquiry he was given free rein to go back onto the attack: he claimed David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband were all getting “disproportionately whacked” by the press in retaliation for having given their backing to Lord Justice Leveson’s investigation into media ethics.

All three party leaders were in the frame because journalists were getting in their “revenge” on the Prime Minister for having set up the inquiry. Campbell felt the motivation for such hostile reporting should not be overlooked: he feared that deep down among politicians there was not much of an appetite to follow through any recommendations which the Leveson Inquiry might make for tightening up press regulation.  Therefore adverse press coverage could become a critical factor.

“I would not rule out the possibility of politicians thinking about how this might affect their own position vis-à-vis the next election; there is some appetite for change but I would not overstate it.”

There was a danger that the judge and the politicians might conclude that the whole issue of media ethics was so complicated and changing so fast that nothing could be done. “Too many parliamentarians want to turn away from this...they want this to go away.”

As he listened to the unfolding argument Robert Jay QC seemed nonplussed both by Campbell’s performance and by his own reaction: here was the inquiry’s legal counsel allowing a noted spin doctor to accuse journalists of habitually spinning a line yet at the same time Jay almost seemed to be encouraging Campbell to spin away about his own conspiracy theory on the motivation for the way the news media were reporting the collapse in the public’s respect for politicians.

Nicholas Jones

12 May, 2012

Having been disadvantaged so often by the ability of the Murdoch press to deliver politically-inspired exclusives, I found Rebekah Brooks’ testimony to the Leveson Inquiry a telling confirmation of what I and most other journalists had always suspected: the Sun and the News of the World had no scruples when it came to exploiting the privileged access which their editors enjoyed in return for the political endorsement of their papers.

Unless a Prime Minister or relevant minister was prepared to comply and give their backing to the latest editorial campaign, the story line could just as easily be turned against the government of the day. But surprisingly often – despite Rebekah Brooks’ denial that threats were ever made – the Sun and the News of the World succeeded in gaining precisely the ministerial support they were seeking.

Brooks was challenged repeatedly (11.5.2012) over the role she played behind the scenes in gaining government backing for a succession of campaigning initiatives – from the “Sarah’s law” campaign to identify paedophiles, to the sacking of Sharon Shoesmith over the “Baby P” affair and finally David Cameron’s decision to order the Metropolitan Police to re-open the files on the missing youngster Madeleine McCann.

Although the inquiry’s counsel Robert Jay QC failed to question Brooks on the impact of these manufactured story lines on the behaviour of the rest of the news media, she perhaps inadvertently gave the clearest possible exposition of why both Labour and Conservative spin doctors have always been so keen to adopt a policy of divide and rule when dealing with journalists.

 

Nicholas Jones

12 May, 2012

David Cameron’s former spin doctor Andy Coulson gave an assured account of himself before the Leveson inquiry into press standards – he certainly avoided giving any incriminating answers about the way the coalition government dealt with News Corporation’s controversial bid for full control of BSkyB.

Coulson did admit that he when he became the Downing Street director of communications in May 2010 he overlooked mentioning his own potential conflict of interest – in holding News Corporation stock options worth £40,000 – but he insisted he had no involvement in discussions over the aborted take-over bid.

Unlike Rupert and James Murdoch when offering their evidence to the inquiry, Coulson avoided making comments or asides and he stood loyally by the Prime Minister (who had give him a “second chance”) and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne who had recommended him for a job with the Conservative Party after his resignation from the editorship of the News of the World. 

It seemed the harder Robert Jay QC, the inquiry counsel, tried to lead Coulson into offering fresh insights – even when backed up by Lord Justice Leveson – the easier it became for the former spin doctor to close down potentially incriminating lines of inquiry.

During an evidence session lasting for two and a half hours, Coulson’s repeated refrains were a variation of the same themes:  “No, I don’t recall any discussions...I am not sure what I knew which day...No I don’t know what he was thinking...” and so it went on.

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

Andy Rowell, 8 May 2012

Later today, the government will publish the Queen's Speech, when its new legislative programme is outlined. All the indications are that it will secretly break a promise that was set out in the coalition agreement, signed in May 2010.

This gave a firm and unequivocal commitment to promote the construction of new nuclear reactors only if they received “no public subsidy”.

In the days after the Coalition was formed, the new Secretary of State for Energy, Chris Huhne stressed there was agreement within the coalition that there will be no public subsidy.

Huhne was just reiterating a Lib Dem policy that there should not any public subsidies for nuclear.  Back in November 2007, he said: “Nuclear is a tried, tested and failed technology and the Government must stop putting time, effort and subsidies into reviving this outdated industry.”

25 April 2012

So, this Mr Fred Michel fellow, as he is now being called by the Conservatives, is a just a lobbyist trying to impress his boss, James Murdoch, claiming access he never had. The 163 pages of emails released today by the Leveson inquiry are, say defenders of Jeremy Hunt, just a PR man showing off.

The emails show that Hunt’s office was in regular contact with Michel. For example, one reads: “Managed to get some infos on the plans for tomorrow (although absolutely illegal!),”  referring to intelligence they'd gathered on a parliamentary statement Hunt was due to make. Another shows that when Hunt cancels a meeting with James Murdoch because he has received "very strong legal advice not to meet us today as the current process is treated as a judicial one", Michel reports to his boss that he can still talk to him on his mobile phone "which is completely fine"

And the government's response? Tonight Downing Street is insisting that Michel’s emails reflect “a whole series of conversations that didn’t take place ”.

Remember the government's response to the previous lobbying scandal, the cash-for-access one involving Conservative co-treasurer Peter Cruddas. He claimed on film that that large cash payments could secure dinner with the prime minister and an opportunity to influence government policy. The government's response then was that it was a lot of bluster, that no one in the Number 10 policy unit ever met anyone at Peter Cruddas's request, and that Cruddas certainly had never been near Cameron's flat. Again, one man's boasts. Move on.

Or the scandal before that? The one involving lobbyists at Bell Pottinger again caught on film claiming access and influence with No10. A Downing Street spokesman came back with a familiar retort: "It is simply untrue to say that Bell Pottinger or any other lobbying company influences government". No truth to the claims of access and influence. Just more boasts.

What about the one before that? When attempts were made to paint Adam Werritty, the unofficial adviser-cum-lobbyist to now ex-defence secretary Liam Fox, as a Walter Mitty character, someone who indulged in fantasy, who "pretended he was something he wasn't". Another deluded lobbyist.

Will they try it again? Probably. Or will they finally face the fact that we have a problem with lobbying in this country and actually do something about it. Who knows.

 

1 April 2012

David Cameron held "secret meetings" with big donors which were not declared, the Sunday Times (£) reports today in its follow up to last week’s Cash for Cameron investigation.

The now ex-party treasurer Peter Cruddas and large donors met David Cameron at more than a dozen private events, it reveals, none of which got a mention on a list published this week by Downing Street.

Among the fresh allegations is a document written by the lobbyist and former Cameron aide, Sarah Southern, who was hired by the reporters. In it she outlines what her company Sarah Southern Consulting could do – for £15,000 a month – for the fake wealth fund executives. Her proposal offers the following services:

• A series of introductions and meetings with key decision makers at the heart of government, “likely to include Ministers, MPs, Special Advisers, policy developers and key influencers within the Party and Coalition”;
• These meetings will provide the client with “the latest information and intelligence on current decision making and behind the scenes operation”;
• Meetings will also provide an opportunity for Ministers, MPs and their advisers to hear the views of the client "on a range of issues and suggestions for future direction on policy".

There’s more besides in the 9 page document on the many clubs, conferences and dinners that the clients can buy into to “engage and meet with senior Party people including the Cabinet and key MPs.” But perhaps the most interesting paragraph is the final one:
"Confidentiality: Sarah Southern Consulting operates on a strictly confidential basis. Clients are not revealed through any marketing materials…Client names are only revealed with the approval of the client… Discretion and confidentiality will be maintained.”

This is two fingers to the government’s pledge on lobbying transparency from someone who "spent more time in the first third of [2010] with DC than I did with anybody else in my life", "planning and executing David Cameron's events and visits prior to and during the General Election". She was perhaps too busy to listen to DC's speech in February 2010 predicting that lobbying is "the next big scandal" and his pledge to "be the party that sorts all this out".

At the moment, without statutory regulation for lobbyists, the likes of Sarah Southern (and the lobbying industry is littered with former party workers) are free to operate in secret. And under the government’s proposals to regulate lobbyists… the vast majority of lobbyists will stay under the radar. The proposals are a sham. Without fundamental changes to its plans, lobbyists will continue to get paid by clients to meet, fund and influence our political leaders in secret. Cue another scandal.

Only a robust lobbying register – not politicians' diary notes – can curb private interests' influence over government policy; from Guardian Comment is Free, 27 March 2012.

In May 2008, just a week after being elected mayor, Boris Johnson received a an invitation from City lobbyist Roland Rudd: "Would you like to have dinner with me and a small group of senior chairmen and chief executives who would be fascinated to hear your plans for London," wrote Rudd.

Johnson was "pleased to accept" and duly cycled to Rudd's grand house in Kensington for a 7.30pm "meet and greet". After 25 minutes, the guests were seated, and at precisely 8.05pm, starters served. Ten minutes passed before Rudd made introductions, and at 8.20pm Johnson said a few words ("standing at the table"). At 8.25pm, the mains arrived. Boris was away by bike at 10.30pm. This much we know (from documents released by the mayor's office under freedom of information). What we don't know is what was discussed in the course of the three-hour dinner: what information was shared, and on which policy matters the mayor was lobbied. Were any promises made or deals struck?

And now we are to know the supper arrangements of the prime minister, who has offered to publish quarterly his dinners with donors. Don't be fooled. We will similarly learn very little of consequence from such disclosure. More importantly, this small offering of transparency is being served up by the government at a time when it is actively engaged in limiting public scrutiny of lobbying.

Eveline Lubbers, 28 March 2012

If the first official review of undercover policing is to set the tone for the next dozen or so evaluations to come, there is not much hope. Of all reviews, this is the only one focusing on the activities of Mark Kennedy specifically and the supervision of undercover officers by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) more generally.

The findings and recommendations of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) are shocking for their emptiness, in three different ways. The findings are flimsy, which makes you wonder whether the search was superficial, or even worse, that there was nothing to discover. Its recommendations are ridiculous, the tightening of the term ‘domestic extremism’ by broadening it with yet another non-existent subjective term ‘serious criminality’ will not bring any clarity as Matt Salusbury pointed out earlier at SpinWatch. Thirdly, the report is shocking for what it does not discuss - the pressing issues that the responsible authorities have left untouched.

25 March 2012

Lots of commentary today on the latest lobbying scandal involving 'Cash for Cameron', including this from Lord Mandelson on Sky News: 

"I’ve got nothing against people contributing to politics. Some people contribute their time, others contribute money but there has to rules, there has to be transparency."

This is the Mandelson who recently dodged new rules which would force peers to disclose certain business clients. Mandelson runs a consultancy business, Global Counsel. Just as the new rules came in, he switched his entry on the Lords register of interests from one category ('directorship') to another ('paid employment'), sidestepping the requirement to disclose his client list. The FT has the full details. 

This sorry state of affairs has led the Cabinet Office minister Mark Harper, in charge of regulating lobbying, to suggest that he will apply a "Lord Mandelson test" to the Government’s lobbying register plans to ensure they stand up to scrutiny.

Harper was told: “Any lobbying register that doesn’t include Peter Mandelson is going to be subject to ridicule.” 

As it stands, however, the government's plans to open up lobbying are a joke. Although, not a very funny one in light of today's revelations.

24 March 2012

So, what does a quarter of a million pounds buy you these days?

According to Tory party co-treasurer, Peter Cruddas, it will buy you secret meetings with David Cameron and propel you into the "premier league" of party donors.

According to Cruddas, who has just resigned: "Things will open up for you”; you can lobby the prime minister directly on business issues and their views are “fed in” to the Downing Street policy machine; you can pick up “key bits of information”; ask Cameron “practically any question" you want; George Osborne will press the flesh with your clients.

In short:  “It will be awesome for your business.”

Filming by undercover reporters for the Sunday Times posing as wealth fund executives, sheds light on a state of affairs long understand by the public, and frankly admitted by Cameron two years ago:

"Lobbying – we all know how it works", he said in a speech on rebuilding trust in politics. "The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear... helping big business find the right way to get its way... with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest."

The undercover journalists were introduced to Cruddas by a hired lobbyist, Sarah Southern, a former Cameron aide. On tape she revealed how she used her personal friendships with former colleagues to help clients. However, she added that things are changing in the UK: "We might end up with this lobbying register," she said.

She is referring to the government's proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists, which it is currently consulting on.

But, anyone who has looked at the government's plans knows that they are a nonsense. The proposals, despite Cameron's prediction that lobbying was the "next big scandal waiting to happen", are less than useless. As they stand they would touch only a quarter of the lobbying industry (and not Southern, as she points out); and then require lobbyists to reveal no meaningful information.

Now, surely, more than ever, Cameron can see the sense in bringing in real transparency in lobbying. We need a statutory register to require lobbyists to reveal who is lobbying whom, what they are seeking to influence and how much money they are spending.

It won't stop the private dinners, but it would let us see who is bending the Prime Minister's ear, and the 'awesome' influence they are having on the way this country is run.

Rob Edwards, 21 March 2012

The energy minister, Charles Hendry, is preparing to waive the rules on admitting skilled foreign workers in order to keep the government’s nuclear power programme on track, according to a report today in Private Eye magazine, using documents released to SpinWatch.

Hendry made his suggestion, the latest in a series of sops to the nuclear industry, at the first meeting of a hitherto secret group called the Programme Management Board. It was set up by the nuclear industry and the government to try and prevent their plans for eight new nuclear stations from going off the rails.

The minutes of the meeting last November, and related correspondence, have been released by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) under Freedom of Information laws.

The board was the brainchild of the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), which represents nuclear companies in the UK. It brings the French firms, EDF Energy and Areva, the US giant, Westinghouse, and other companies together with DECC and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS). It also includes the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the government’s safety watchdog.

Tom Griffin, 9 March 2012

Lorna Fitzsimons believes that Israel's lurch to the right is just one facet of a global democratic crisis, but I would argue that the Israeli rejectionism that she defended during her time as head of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM) was a key factor in creating an era of militarism that helped to bring that crisis about. Moreover, the former Labour MP noted last month that, "A notion is spreading in the West that Israel is fast becoming an illiberal ethno-democracy - fear-driven, bigoted, and small minded." She was introducing a debate on Israeli democracy in what turned out be one of her final acts with the lobby group and, she insisted, "that notion is just not true".

The claim drew a powerful response from activist Ben White, which outlined the thoroughly illiberal ethnocentric history of Israeli repression of the Palestinians since 1948 in the New Statesman. That in turn drew a rejoinder from BICOM's Dr Toby Greene and Professor Alan Johnson, who argued that a majority of people in Israel endorsed "full equality of rights for Arab citizens of the state" in a recent survey by the Israeli Democracy Institute. A similar majority of Israelis support the long-overdue establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, which will fulfil the national rights of Palestinian Arabs.

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:none; mso-hyphenate:none; text-autospace:ideograph-other; font-size:11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-kerning:1.5pt; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

Andy Rowell, 8 March 2012

Secret lobbying by the nuclear industry and an open door at the European Commission have kept nuclear power on the EU’s agenda, despite public concern following the disaster at Fukushima, according to a new report from Corporate Europe Observatory published yesterday, a year after the meltdown at Fukushima in Japan

The report reveals how the industry spent an estimated 20 million euros and made use of friends in high places to ensure nuclear energy remained on the agenda in Europe, at the expense of the renewables industry.

Despite clear opposition to nuclear power from some member states, European Commission officials worked closely with the industry and provided 800,000 euros in funding in 2011 for the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform, an industry-led platform which promotes EU investment in nuclear research.

6 March 2012

DOWNLOAD OUR BRIEFING: Bringing Transparency to Lobbying.

Lobbyists are paid to influence government decisions. There are some 4000 people working professionally in the UK's £2billion influence industry.

Many lobbyists are former MPs, some are Peers, or ex-senior officials, partners and neighbours of Cabinet Ministers, former flatmates and old colleagues of current politicians.

The biggest spenders on lobbying are large companies, for whom lobbying is a tactical investment: the aim of it is to benefit their bottom line, often against the public interest.

This much we know. But, at the moment in the UK, we've no right to know who is lobbying whom, and for what.

This could be about to change. The coalition government has agreed in principle to open up lobbying with a register. But their current proposals, published in January, are a sham.

We now have a rare opportunity to expose the influence industry, and help change the back-room deal nature of politics. Find out how.

Government proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists met criticism from all sides when the Hansard Society provided a platform for the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform, Mark Harper.  Lobbyists, charities and campaigners rounded on the defects and inadequacies of what they predicted would become nothing more than a meaningless list of names.

Harper did his best to defend what he said would be an “ongoing register” of “who is lobbying for whom” which would provide a public record of lobbyists, consultancies, law firms, charities etc and would catch “anyone who does anything which could be described as lobbying.”

There would be sanctions (perhaps civil or criminal) for lobbyists who did not comply by signing up to the register but the government was determined to keep its proposals – currently open for consultation until 30 April – proportionate to the problem; there was no intention of creating a statutory code of conduct for lobbyists or establishing a regulator to oversee the industry.

Harper made a swift exit before the Hansard Society opened up the issue for debate (29.2.2012) but if he had remained he would have heard his proposals being roundly derided.

21 February 2012

“Well, we always knew HMIC’s ludicrously named ‘review of national police units which provide intelligence on criminality associated with protest’ was going to be a farce, and we haven’t been disappointed.”

That’s what FITwatch wrote when the first review into the special unit that supervised Mark Kennedy as an infiltrator was published earlier this month.  Today SpinWatch republishes a critical overview of the report, by Matt Salusbury, freelance journalist and self-proclaimed Data Protection Act enthusiast.

Nicholas Jones

6 February, 2012

The role of newspapers like the Sun in offering “implacable support” for Tony Blair’s backing of the American-led invasion of Iraq was cited at the Leveson Inquiry as an example of how the Murdoch press was required to reflect the political views of its proprietor.

Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, told Lord Justice Leveson (6.2.2012) that he valued his “total freedom” as an editor – unlike the editors of The Times, Sunday Times, Sun and News of the World who had to follow the “strong views” which Rupert Murdoch communicated to them.

Dacre claimed that Blair, as Prime Minister, would have been unable to commit the use of British forces in the Iraq War “without the implacable support provided by the Murdoch newspapers...and that came from Murdoch himself.”

Evidence which backed up Dacre’s claim – although not referred to at the inquiry – was obtained by the Glasgow Media Group in October 2008 as a result of requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

Extracts from telephone conversations between Murdoch and Blair revealed the depth of Murdoch’s commitment to support the British Prime Minister.

 Nicholas Jones

1 February, 2012

Ofcom. the broadcasting regulator, gave an assurance to the Leveson Inquiry (1.2.2012) that it would speed up its investigation into whether it has sufficient power to provide protection against media companies exercising too much political influence.

Ed Richards, Ofcom’s chief executive, told Lord Justice Leveson that if given another chance to look again at News Corporation’s aborted bid for total control of BSkyB it would have placed more emphasis on the “risk to the democratic process.”

Ofcom’s evidence gets to the heart of one of the key challenges for the Inquiry: should there be fresh restrictions on the concentration of media power?  Campaigners for greater media plurality say that News Corporation’s level of media ownership in Britain – 39 per cent of BSkyB together with three national newspapers (The Times, Sunday Times and Sun) – is too large and should be reduced.

In his evidence to the inquiry Richards acknowledged that the absence of the power to make recommendations on the impact of media concentration on the democratic process became an issue during the investigations it conducted into News Corporation’s bid to take full control of BSkyB.

29 Jan 2012

The Sunday Times reports this morning that the Cabinet Office official in charge of government efforts to clean-up of lobbying has stepped down after posting a message on Twitter saying she hoped a group fighting for better regulation of the industry “would die”.

The remark appeared in a series of tweets by Eirian Walsh Atkins, who resigned as head of constitutional policy at the Cabinet Office on Friday. She now faces an internal investigation into possible breaches of the civil service code of conduct.

The paper reports: 'Walsh Atkins will be asked to explain the tweet she posted on December 22, saying: “I wish Unlock Democracy [the campaign group] would die. I am prepared to help it along.”

Asked by The Sunday Times to explain her comment about Unlock Democracy, she replied: “That I don’t like them,” and hung up.

However, more important than her apparent dislike of transparency campaigners is the fact that Walsh Atkins has held regular meetings with lobbyists seeking to influence the government's proposed statutory register of lobbyists, which she was responsible for preparing. She has met with the UK Public Affairs Council (UKPAC), a lobby industry body promoting self-regulation, on at least four occasions since September 2010. At the same time, transparency campaigners have been denied access.

The government's proposals for a statutory register, published last week, were widely seen as a whitewash, with lobbyists' fingerprints all over them.

The fact that the lobbying industry's lobbying of Walsh Atkins would remain a secret under the government's current proposals, will not do the government's case for minimal reform any favours.