Already the cracks are appearing. Every now and then, the hint of a scandal appears and then swiftly, almost eerily, it disappears. Enormous sums of money are at stake, often more than the GDP of small countries, so it’s hardly surprising that this should be so.

It will come as no surprise to anyone that politicians are once again complicit in these scandals. They have enormous influence, whether it be formal or informal, just knowing the right person can be worth diamonds.

Sometimes it’s pretty direct, like David Geffen’s meeting with Peter Mandelson being followed, by the most amazing of coincidences, with draconian new anti-file-sharing legislation appearing on the horizon just weeks later. I’m sure nothing as vulgar as money changing hands was involved. But Mr Geffen now owes Lord Peter a decent favour, and Mr Geffen knows lots of media types, which might be handy if Lord Peter wanted lots of media visibility for something in his future. It might not even ever be collected, but it’s there. Maybe it will be traded for something from someone else in the future.

Who knows?

But more often the dealing is much less overt. Nondescript firms with anonymous names like Bell Pottinger or Bergmans or some arbitrary collection of letters like PLMR spend years hovering around the political process, acting as “Special Advisors” or bag carriers for MPs, building their networks of connections, buying people drinks and getting ready for that all-important move out into the private sector, where they can sell their relationships with key players and “nudge” politicians in the “right” direction.

Worryingly, some of these people dip in and out of the political system, working to ensure an ever greater degree of influence over the political process. Three names have already appeared in the coalition government as being very close to the edge of probity: the first is Caroline Spelman, who narrowly (and quite inexplicably) escaped serious censure over her dealings with her nanny has already attracted some attention for the fact that her husband is a lobbyist in the agricultural sector, headed up in the government by … Caroline Spelman!

The second name to attract attention was Gerald Howarth, an MP with a long list of “generous” interactions with arms lobbyists who was in line for head of … Defence Procurement! Mercifully, he got shunted aside, but he’s still in the MOD.

And then there’s the enviro-crusading MP Tim Yeo, who, purely by coincidence, has directorships in any number of “green” companies.

But these incidences of self-interest or “mates’ rates” are a mere bagatelle when compared with the lobbying of, say, the pharmaceutical companies. As recently as this week, it was revealed that the authors of the WHO report that incited the swine flu scare had all made money off the manufacturers of Tamiflu and Relenza, the main anti-flu drugs. The UK alone stockpiled £1billion of totally useless and unnecessary drugs. We’re still trying to get out of the contract, because our civil servants were led like lambs to the slaughter by these “experts”.

And defence, long an area of incredible “spend” by governments around the world. Insane amounts of money are poured into defence procurement, yet somehow our troops are not properly equipped, our ships are late and over budget, we’re spending vast sums on a Eurofighter that is already obsolete and it hasn’t even been delivered yet! Why should this be? It couldn’t possibly be because lobbyists are suggesting that the MOD has to “buy British” and because the people paying the lobbyists want complex, big-ticket sales with extraordinary cancellation conditions. Could it?

But even these two examples are quite tame compared to the one that truly does get my goat: “third-sector” lobbying. In the old days, this would have been called “charity”. You know, you took your old clothes to Oxfam, and a team of volunteers would sort and sell your clothes and the profits would go to helping needy people abroad. At some point, that all got badly corrupted. “Charities” have now become “the third sector” of the economy, much like quangos but with the appearance of being totally independent of the government. However, most of their income is actually derived from the state, either directly or via other “third-sector” sources.

Ultimately, when Don Shenker, Deborah Arnott or some other killjoy appears on TV or in the national press telling you how you have to live your life and advising the government to “do something”, they have taken your own money from you to do so. At least when BP lobbies for piffling fines for any oil spill that may occur (say), they are doing so with their own money. Third sector “charities” take your money, spend it promoting their beliefs and values and just to put the cherry on top, are exempt from paying tax as well.

Mark my words, when this boils over it will make the MPs’ expenses scandal look like cheating at Scrabble. There will be blood.

I hope.

1
Eleanor June 5, 2010 at 09:14

Blood? Is that all? It’s bloody horrific, I know that.

No point in saying that “Something” has to be done, is there?

2
lenko June 5, 2010 at 09:21

I’m sure you’re right. Lobbying has been the biggest open-secret scandal for years, and on both sides of the pond. The old definition of an honest politician was one which, having been bought, STAYED bought. And for years, Private Eye have been exposing those who go through the “revolving door” between the government and lobbying.

It seems the whole world runs on graft. Wish I’d known about it when I was younger. Too late now.

3
Spiral Architect June 5, 2010 at 09:42

Well, I guess we’ll see the true colour of Cameron’s character soon enough.

If he doesn’t shift Spelman, then we’ll know he has feet of clay.

4
roger June 5, 2010 at 09:44

The eurofighter is hardly ‘ obsolete’. It’s about to be introduced as a replacement to the Tornado for air defence in the UK and in the bomber role in Afghanistan. It’s superior in all aspects of air to air combat and bombing compared to any enemy it’s likely to meet in the future. And it’s not British. The costs have been shared with Germany, Italy etc. Too expensive though which is why orders have been reduced by over a third.
Oh and it will make billions for the UK when Saudi buy it to replace their ageing fleet of Tornado fighters and bombers. The contracts have already been signed.

5
Hollando June 5, 2010 at 09:57

I think it is more accurate to say that Eurofighter ‘obsoletes’ everything before it – the squadron stationed at Mount Pleasant makes the Argentine Air Force effectively pointless

It’s bloody expensive though

6
Catosays June 5, 2010 at 10:30

It always baffles me that we have to pay defence contractors BEFORE they’ve completed the contract.

Think back to our own version of AWACS…the updated Nimrod variant.

We paid English Electric Leo Marconi millions only to find out it was a pile of poo.

7
roger June 5, 2010 at 10:46

Cato

We wouldn’t have any British defence companies if we only paid on delivery. An aircraft takes about 10 to 15 years to go from drawing board to battlefield and no company has the billions to cover that. It’s the same in the US or anywhere else in the world.
You could argue that we should just buy off the shelf ‘proven ‘ equipment and many see that as the way to go in the future. Mmany countries buy direct from the US after seeing the stuff in action. The Belgium and Dutch F16 aircraft from the US or the saudis buying the F15 and Apaches from the US.
The problem with this plan is that eventually you would have only one supplier and they could basically charge what they want. Selling to their political and ideological friends and refusing to sell to countries who criticise them etc.
The Nimrod Mk3 was the Tories pile of poo. I remember seeing one and knowing it would never work. Looked bloody ugly and the radar just couldn’t hack it.

8
Alan June 5, 2010 at 13:54

“We wouldn’t have any British defence companies if we only paid on delivery. An aircraft takes about 10 to 15 years to go from drawing board to battlefield and no company has the billions to cover that. It’s the same in the US or anywhere else in the world.”

They don’t *have* to take 10 to 15 years. Feature bloat caused by procurement wonks insisting on more cupholders, over optimistic specifications and unrealistic manufacturer claims ends up with the gestation period matching the ability of manufacturers to develop their production methods to meet their pie in the sky plans rather than being able to stamp out the aircraft when originally requested.

No urgency and a blank cheque is a recipe for disaster. How many times do major military projects have to come in late and over budget for the MoD and Government to realise they and the defence industry are hopeless at guesstimating the cost and time of things and knowing what they want?

9
Bayard June 5, 2010 at 18:22

“We wouldn’t have any British defence companies if we only paid on delivery”

Considering how much the defence companies are effectively subsidised by the state, this may not actually be a bad thing.
Any why would we eventually have only one supplier? the US is not the only arms manufacturer in the world, quite apart from the fact that our “home-grown” armaments contain so many parts from the US that we are effectively in the same position as if they made the entire piece of kit.

10
faulksd June 5, 2010 at 10:48

So why should we be surprised at this? The United Kingdom is – in common with all other so-called nations – a corporation: contrary to popular perception, isn’t a political entity.
What was the purpose of the British Empire? It was to further the business interests of the corporate establishment (ie the East India and Hudson’s Bay companies); forget all the cant about ‘civilizing the savages’.
The relationship between politicians and business has never been properly investigated because it is a long-established secret.
Frank Zappa rightly commented that ‘Politics is the entertainment branch of industry’.
Every now and then we see some hand-wringing as the press get a (permitted) sniff of corruption, but the show goes on unabated. As it was for Labour – so it is for this coalition.

11
Specky June 5, 2010 at 11:34

Pfizer + ash + the DOH.
Classic example of lobbying.
However ,unlike the others it has a direct negative impact on the lives of anyone who chooses to smoke .
Practically persecution in fact.
That’s when it gets me angry.
Drinkers beware, Alchohol Concern are in the non job creation market now as well.

12
SadButMadLad June 5, 2010 at 11:53

Don’t forget the fake charities who take our money via the government.

http://www.fakecharities.org/

13
Alan June 5, 2010 at 13:57

“It couldn’t possibly be because lobbyists are suggesting that the MOD has to “buy British” and because the people paying the lobbyists want complex, big-ticket sales with extraordinary cancellation conditions. Could it?”

Nowt wrong with buying British. It’s the procurement of the MoD and defence industry interests colluding to take existing off the shelf stuff that Britain (or rather, British companies) still makes by the carrier load and insist on specific, exquiste additions and perverse extras which can turn a simple armoured car into a veritable tour de force of already obsolete radio equipment.

The MoD doesn’t know what it wants. Parliament and the Government have not sat down with the MoD since the ‘fall’ of communism to redirect the armed forces into a direction more applicable to today. We are still purchasing along a cold war tack. There are too many Top Brass who have pet projects they want to keep alive.

Whilst there has been a general lack of interest in the military by the Westminster set they have though flexed their muscles in a pernicious way – insisting on the forces integrating with European ones – which has led to some perverse procurement decisions regarding armoured vehicles (FRES, good idea in principle but astonishingly poor attempts to get it off the drawing board), aeroplanes (A400M), ships (Type 45 being horribly expensive with fancypants kit when a simpler ship in greater numbers would have done).

“third-sector”

Can’t call it charity because so much of it no longer is.

14
roger June 5, 2010 at 16:28

Alan

” Parliament and the Government have not sat down with the MoD since the ‘fall’ of communism”

Not really true. Thousands of soldiers, sailors and airman were made redundant in 1993-1996 due to the reduction in manpower and equipment requirements after the fall of the wall. I was always amused when 13th Century Liam Fox etc used to hammer away at Labour over Defence cuts. The Tories were probably worse. Thousands given short notice to get out with poor planning over re settlement courses.
Hopeless procurement decisions ( Westland, Nimrod AEW etc ) Poor defence decisions ( Falklands – running down the garrison despite Argentine threats ). I’d say all parties are equally incompetent.

15
Alan June 7, 2010 at 00:34

“Not really true. Thousands of soldiers, sailors and airman were made redundant in 1993-1996 due to the reduction in manpower and equipment requirements after the fall of the wall.”

Technology has replaced manpower in some roles too.

The focus of the MoD doesn’t appear to have changed much though. We are still tracking along a path of dependence on US airpower and expensive solutions to deal with a well defined foe. It has just been slimmed down to better match the budget.

16
Zoe Zimmerman June 7, 2010 at 17:13

I totally agree with @Alan when he says that manpower has been replaced by technology in quiet a lot of areas and there is no one to blame about that. Besides, even when I find the article to be very well explained and to be interestin as well, I think it is not enough to blame politicians for the crisis and the recession. We are all to be blamed and therefore we are all expected to work as hard as possible to keep moving on.