..
Some of the electorate still operate under the naïve fantasy that modern neoliberal governments are there to support the interests of the people that elected them – scratch the surface however and another truth is soon revealed.
Remember how the UK government was committed to plain packaging for cigarettes? That soon got scuppered amid the not entirely surprising suspicion that discussions with tory election strategist Lynton Crosby (a lobbyist for big tobacco) had helped scupper it.
The website Tobacco tactics reports:
It was widely reported that the reason for the Government’s abandonment of plain packaging (along with other public health measures such as minimum pricing for alcohol – (more on that in a moment – Haze) was the influence of Conservative campaign strategist, Lynton Crosby. Crosby owns an Australian PR and lobbying firm called the Crosby Textor Group, “a specialist opinion research, strategic communications and campaigns company”[5] which has links with both the tobacco and alcohol industries.[6] Sparking concern from public health groups, Crosby Textor was appointed by the Conservative Party in December 2012 to provide ‘strategic direction’ for the next election.[7]
The UK branch of Crosby’s firm, which operates under the name Crosby Textor Fullbrook (CTF), has had tobacco companies on its books since the 1980s.[8] On Crosby’s profile page on the CTF website it states that CTF “deploys tools as diverse as PR, lobbying and public policy advocacy in support of clients’ objectives.”
Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston stated:
It is a concern, a great concern, that somebody so close to the heart of Government has such links with lobbying organisations. It makes the point on why we need transparency on lobbying in the UK.[9]
MP Diane Abbott, Labour’s Shadow Public Health Minister called for Prime Minister David Cameron to explain the omission of plain packaging from the Queen’s Speech.
This is deeply concerning, because behind all the chaos, confusion and dither, it’s clear that Lynton Crosby and the government’s friends in big business are pulling the strings, and public health is being quietly ditched by this government…David Cameron needs to get out of the bunker and explain…whether he was aware of his main campaign strategist’s business interests when he offered him the job.[10]
Similarly, Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham said:
From the outside it looks very much like a right-wing lobbyist is dictating the Coalition’s health policy.[11]
Recently we also had the abrupt U-turn by the government over minimum pricing on the sale of alcohol.
David Cameron was committed to introducing minimum pricing in March 2012, but reversed the decision in July last year. Jeremy Browne, then a Home Office minister, told the House of Commons at the time that the Government lacked
“concrete evidence that its introduction would be effective in reducing harms… without penalising people who drink responsibly”.
Really? The kind of evidence supplied by a report from the University of Sheffield, showing the benefits of minimum unit pricing, a draft copy of which had been lodged with the government for FIVE MONTHS before the abrupt U-turn.
An additional report which concluded that the Government’s preferred policy (do nothing that upsets big booze companies and retailers – Haze) would be ineffective was delayed until after the U-turn announcement – at the Home Office’s request.
A British Medical Journal (BMJ) investigation revealed that ministers and officials met representatives from large drinks firms and leading supermarkets on numerous occasions – even after the formal consultation period had closed.
John Holmes, a public health research fellow at Sheffield University, told the BMJ that the first draft of their research, which concluded that minimum pricing would reduce alcohol consumption and harms and would have only a small impact on moderate drinkers, was sent to the Home Office as early as February 2013.
Sheffield University eventually published two reports but rather too late to save the pricing legislation . The Home Office report concluded that the Government’s eventual preferred policy – banning alcohol sales at costs cheaper than the tax payable on the product – would be 40 to 50 times less effective than a minimum price of 45p per unit.
The Independent takes up the story:
The Conservative MP and former GP Sarah Wollaston claimed last night that the university had been “intimidated into not publishing its data” before the announcement, telling The Independent that she had also been denied advance access.
Mr Holmes said that after sending the second report to the Government, “the Home Office further requested that we did not release our appraisals of this policy ahead of any government announcement,” adding that the university agreed to the request.
The BMJ said its investigation revealed the “extraordinary level of access” granted by the Government to the alcohol industry. Documents, some of them obtained through Freedom of Information requests, reveal that the Department of Health alone has held 130 meetings with alcohol industry representatives since 2010.
In March 2012, David Cameron wrote that a minimum price of 40p per unit could mean 50,000 fewer crimes each year, while cutting alcohol-related deaths by 900 a year by the end of the decade.
“Of course, I know the proposals in this strategy won’t be universally popular,” he wrote at the time. “But the responsibility of being in government isn’t always about doing the popular thing. It’s about doing the right thing.”
Sadly it seems that the cumulative effect of those 130 meetings somehow managed to quell the Prime Minister’s quest for “doing the right thing” and despite having all the evidence it needed to introduce minimum pricing on alcohol – it abruptly decided it needed more evidence.
Not only did the government know it had enough evidence but it knew that it would be seen to have had enough. If news of the Sheffield University and the Home Office studies leaked out it would be hard to explain why they needed more evidence – so they took steps to ensure both were buried until the decision was already made.
Look at just how busy the booze lobby has been:
(a) Three days before the announcement that minimum pricing would not be introduced, George Osborne was among 100 MPs and members of the House of Lords who wined and dined at the table of the alcohol industry at the 20th annual dinner of the all-party parliamentary beer group. At the dinner, Mr Osborne was awarded the title of Beer Drinker of the Year for his decision to scrap the beer duty escalator. Cheers!
(b) In January and February 2013, during the Home Office consultation on minimum unit pricing, Sajid Javid, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, had meetings with lobbying groups. He also had a beer named in his honour to thank him for his part in taking 1p off beer duty. Bottoms up!
(c) Public health minister Anna Soubry and Theresa May, the Home Secretary, hosted the alcohol industry on 3 July 2013 to discuss “voluntary action that industry could take to help reduce problem drinking and the crime and health harms associated with it”. Those well known friends of the problem drinker Asda, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, and Tesco; mused thoughtfully alongside drinks companies Diageo, ABInBev, and Heineken; and of course lobby groups. Trebles all round!
(d) Conservative Party strategist Lynton Crosby’s (yep him again – the people’s friend Haze) Australian consulting firm Crosby Textor includes the Distilled Spirits Industry Council of Australia among its clients, according to the register of lobbyists in New South Wales. The Council has been fighting against proposals for a “minimum floor price” tabled by the Australian National Preventative Health Agency. Here’s not to your health!
So minimum pricing on alcohol abandoned but on the plus side George Osborne is “‘Beer drinker of the year”.
Next up the scourge of fixed odds betting terminals – oft touted as the crack cocaine of gambling and responsible for far too many tails of compulsive addiction, destitution and family break up. Its legal right now to place them in a betting shop with no restrictions whatsoever.
You might have thought that restricting the use of these machines was a no-brainer.
“We’ve taken the most dangerous form of gambling there is and placed it in the most accessible place possible – no other country in the world has done that,” says Adrian Parkinson. He should know; a former manager at a betting company, he helped bring FOBTs to Britain.
It was neoliberal ‘new’ Labour who ushered in the use of FOBT’s in the first place as they deregulated the gambling industry. But at least in opposition they were calling for local councils to be given the power to licence and limit their numbers particularly in deprived areas.
Labour tabled a debate to that effect and things looked good as everybody appeared to be in agreement – David Cameron once again wanted to do the right thing!
Earlier in the day David Cameron said he “absolutely shares the concerns” of Ed Miliband over the spread of the high-speed, high-stakes gambling machines in Britain’s high streets
But the motion to get cracking on this problem was voted down by the coalition.
Guess what? They need more evidence.
A study will report in 2014 and perhaps the more cynical readers can guess what will happen in the run up to 2015 election – nothing – as it will too late in the parliament.
Cheap booze, pretty packets of fags and wallet busting gambling all round!
Here’s to the power of corporate lobbying – making your own government work against you whenever it can manage it.
Sources:
http://tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Plain_Packaging_in_the_UK
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/08/labour-defeated-over-fixed-odds-betting-terminals
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/06/betting-shop-machines-predatory-capitalism
More Stories
Covid19 is here forever – unless we mend our selfish ways
A Corona credit crunch looms – get your cash out now?
10 phrases of Corona Media Speak # 9 Virtual Lock Down