Pete Roche, 22 May 2012
 

21 May 2012

Westminster secretly lobbied the Indian government to give the go-ahead to a controversial multi-billion pound deal with a leading Scottish oil company, internal emails passed by SpinWatch to the Sunday Herald reveal.

UK government officials, briefed "over dinner" by Cairn Energy, offered to "polish" and send a letter drafted by the company. At a lunch, they also urged a key Indian government minister to back the deal. The Indian government subsequently gave permission for Cairn's £5.5 billion agreement to sell off the bulk of its Indian oil business to Vedanta, an Indian mining and metals giant much criticised by human rights and environmental groups. The deal, labelled "the largest transaction ever to happen in India", is now being challenged in the Indian Supreme Court.  Last week Cairn shareholders rebelled against a huge payout to reward chief executive Bill Gammell.

Read the full story by Rob Edwards in the Sunday Herald,  and see the internal emails and background documents on our Powerbase wiki website.

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.

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".

"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.