Is Lobbying Banned in North Korea?

One of the points I have made in the past in defence of lobbying is that North Korea is the only country on the planet that bans lobbying.  Obviously expressing views at odds with the regime is extreme folly.  In truth, though, I simply don’t know if lobbying as such is technically banned.  Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

However this point has been in my mind while following the extraordinary events in North Korea over the last couple of weeks.  Yesterday’s funeral, followed by today’s memorial service culminating in the “crowning” of the next generation of dynastic leader, were truly remarkable.  It is clear that whatever forces have delivered a 28-year old to the point of control over nuclear weapons, democratic ones have not featured at all.

When I made the point on twitter before about North Korea being the only country that bans lobbying, some buffoon told me that I was therefore suggesting that opponents of lobbying supported dictatorships.  I would have pointed out that this was a huge non sequiter, but I doubt if he would have understood that come back.  But there IS a fundamental point here that needs to be understood.  A feature of dictatorships is that many of the freedoms that we take for granted in democracies are banned.  We should be extremely cautious before we start down the road of banning, restricting or limiting aspects of our democratic process.

The Challenges for the Lobbying Profession in 2012

I hope you have all enjoyed a festive break and are now raring to go into 2012. I suppose boredom after a few days on self-imposed inactivity (I’m told it is good for the soul) has driven me back to the keyboard to blog again.  From the stats I receive on visitors to the site, I understand that six of you looked in on Christmas Day.  I know I should be flattered but do you really have nothing better to do?

So, as the title implies, I thought I would set out some initial thoughts on the challenges that my profession faces in 2012.  I tend to avoid hyperbole, so will shy away from the traditional approach of claiming that the coming year is the most important for a generation, blah, blah.  Instead, it is clear that the environment in which our profession operates will continue to be tough – until of course we make more effort to shape it.

The most obvious – and immediate – challenge is the publication of the government’s consultation on a statutory register of lobbyists.  On this one, I fear for the worse.  I fully expect that the consultation will reveal all the huge obstacles in the way of this proposal – definitional, organisational, logistical – and the danger that millions of people will become disenfranchised from the political process into the bargain.  However it is inconceivable that the government can back down on this one – even if it makes absolutely no sense to proceed.  So our challenge is to make the outcome as little damaging to democracy as possible.

The second challenge is the risk of some idiot lobbyist being exposed in the press.  With the media under the spotlight themselves, of course they will look for a profession that they can portray as less salacious.  And politicians are adept at side stepping blame, so obviously they will blame anyone for their foibles – and that often means lobbyists.  A third challenge follows directly from this.  I fully expect Bell Pottinger to emerge unscathed from the complaint I have made against them to the PRCA, at which point the profession will have a huge job of explaining how the actions they took could fail to be condemned by the self-regulatory machinery.

The third challenge is the one I intend to take head on – with others thankfully putting their hands up to support – namely the continuing low reputation of our profession.  Even to call it a profession is controversial – to me it seems obvious, but some of my peers in lobbying, people I hugely respect, have decided that it is counter-productive to define ourselves as a profession.  Our challenges are all the greater for our lack of unity.  I hope that 2012 brings the unity of purpose our profession desperately needs.

My Letter to Santa in Full

This blog has obtained an exclusive copy of Mark Adams’s letter to Santa, setting out his Christmas wish list.

We can reveal the list is as follows:

1. That the world should live in peace and harmony, especially the APPC, CIPR and PRCA;
2. Please make sure that particularly applies to Francis Ingham and Keith Johnston;
3. That our leaders govern with wisdom and integrity;
4. Please make sure that particularly applies to the Cabinet Office when drawing up their plans for the statutory register of lobbyists;
5. That the less fortunate are comforted at this time;
6. Please make sure that particularly applies to The Professional Lobbying Company, which has no clients yet;
7. That all of us get everything we desire this Christmas;
8. Please make sure that particularly doesn’t apply to Tamasin Cave of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency.

I may blog from time to time over Christmas, dear readers, but for now, let me wish you all a very Happy Christmas.

The Inconsistency of the Press

I work in public relations, which relies on a good relationship with the media. So what I am about to do might be thought of as rather daft. I’m about to attack the press.

Basically I am increasingly irritated by listening to members of the fifth estate moaning about the dangers of statutory regulation of the press, possibly flowing from the Leveson Inquiry. Because many of the same journalists enthuse about the need for statutory regulation of the lobbying profession.

I have just listened to Trevor Kavanagh on the Today Programme, criticising statutory regulation of the press. Now I should make two things clear. I think Trevor is a first class journalist (rather wasted on The Sun, I feel); and I have no idea what he thinks about the regulation of lobbying. However his arguments against statutory regulation of the press transfer almost perfectly to the argument against statutory regulation of the lobbying profession. Indeed I have used many of the same arguments in this blog.

So the next time you read a journalist calling for statutory regulation of lobbying, check their views on statutory regulation of the press. And then tell them to be careful what they wish for.

Where is the Statutory Register?

It didn’t take a political genius to realise that the government would struggle with the publication of its consultation document on a statutory register of lobbyists. They approached the issue with no idea of the complexities they would have to contend with.

What exactly is lobbying? Who counts as a lobbyist? Why should some organisations seeking to influence government be included and others not? From the discussions I have had with those close to the decision, it is clear that the government is no closer to solutions.

The most worrying issue is the cost of all this. The lobbying profession could face a dog’s breakfast costing a meal for two at the Ivy.

I hope the officials in the Cabinet Office have a peaceful Christmas. Because they will have their work cut out in January sorting this out.

Join the Lobbying Debate: Guido v Adams

This blog can reveal that Guido Fawkes has accepted my challenge for a debate on lobbying, to take place as soon as we can arrange in the New Year.  The details are:

“Lobbyists are paid to thwart the democratic will”

Proposed by: Guido Fawkes, Seconded by: Tamasin Cave, Alliance for Lobbying Transparency

Opposed by: Mark Adams, standup4lobbying, Supported by: Professor Justin Fisher, Professor of Political Science, Brunel University

We are currently identifying an independent Chair and host for the debate.  Anyone interested in attending, hosting or sponsoring (any sponsorship will be fully declared) please email me at mark@standup4lobbying.org

Paul Flynn MP’s Comments in Full

The wonderful Paul Flynn has now given me permission to publish his comments on the draft Lobbyists’ Charter. This is the email I received, giving his permission. It is pure gold itself:

“Please do as you wish as long as you make clear that was an instant response made nano seconds after receiving your self-serving drivel.

Living for the joy of witnessing you presenting this to select committees. I’ll try not to laugh out loud.

Feel free to quote me at length. It will be the most intesting part of your epistles
Best
Paul”

So here are his annotated comments on the draft:

“· Lobbying is a fundamental democratic right of us all
· WHICH IS UNEVENLY AVAILABLE.
·
· Professional lobbying should be conducted at all times in a professional and ethical manner. REMINISCENT OF SINNING FOR VIRTUE or SHAGGING FOR VIRGINITY

· Professional lobbyists assist the democratic process by helping to ensure that public policy is subject to rigorous examination and argument. They present information that allows the policy process to be better informed THEY SEEK TO FURTHER ADVANTAGE THE ALREADY ADVANTAGED IN EXCHANGE FOR MONEY.

· It is entirely legitimate for an organisation to use the services of a professional lobbyist, whether by employing them directly or by hiring them through a lobbying company.THOSE TOO STUPID TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES WITH MONEY TO WASTE USE CHINESE WHISPERERS WHO OFTEN WEAKEN AND DISTORT THEIR MESSAGES>

· Professional lobbyists should be subject to a rigorous Code of Conduct, whether on a self-regulatory or statutory basis, designed to enshrine high professional and ethical standards to the benefit of all. SELF-REGULATION IS NO REGULATION. ARE ETHICS PART OF PARASITIC FEEDING OFF THE BOBY POLITIC?
· To ensure that professional lobbyists offer services of the highest standards, structured training and continuing professional development programmes should be developed. MADRASAS FOR TEACHING DECEPTION?”

I particularly love the last point. I most certainly look forward to appearing before the Committee Paul Flynn sits on.

Paul Flynn MP Responds to the Draft Lobbyists’ Charter

Paul Flynn MP is a national treasure.  If Constituency Labour Parties are ever prevented by the tanks at Party HQ from adpoting and re-selecting MPs like him, our national politics will be all the poorer for it.  This is not a partisan point, by the way, the same applies, for example, to my dear friend, Colonel Bob Stewart DSO MP.

I emailed Paul Flynn this morning with a draft of the new Lobbyists’ Charter.  He replied virtually by return with a priceless and very enjoyable set of comments.  I have asked his permission to publish them.  As soon as he grants it, I will post them on here.  I’m sure many of you will enjoy them as much as I did.

I also suggested we have a couple of beers together. We did so a couple of years ago in Strangers Bar of the House of Commons.  He insisted on buying every other round.  I was running my own company, so very much appreciated an MP not expecting me to provide all the hospitality. I think I will enjoy the next time we buy each other a few beers.

In the meantime, let me wish all Paul Flynn’s constituents, Nadolig Llawen.

Why the PRCA is Profoundly Wrong on UKPAC

I consider Francis Ingham to be a friend of mine.  A good friend.  A measure of friendship is how friends can disagree profoundly on issues they both care about passionately, but remain friends.  There is no secret in the fact that Francis disagrees with my decision to make a formal complaint to the PRCA about Bell Pottinger.  I have told him that the way he reported this fact led pretty directly to my resignation from Lansons Communications.  So I guess we have reason to be cross with each other.

Well Francis will this morning have another reason to be cross with me.  Because frankly I think he is profoundly wrong about withdrawing the PRCA from the UK Public Affairs Council.  I actually agree with him that UKPAC is failing, as I have blogged previously here.  However, unlike him, I believe that UKPAC can work, but only by changing the two things fundamentally wrong with it.  And, ironically, the two things that are wrong with it are two things that Francis (not necessarily alone) demanded. 

The first is the £60,000 annual budget, set becasue the PRCA absolutely refused to pay more than £20,000 itself.  Francis has asked how difficult it is to publish a register.  A fair point, but it still costs money – and the PRCA’s penny pinching pretty much strangled UKPAC at birth.  Francis now supports a statutory register, which will cost a minimum of £1 million a year to implement, probably significantly more, and I’m sure the industry will have to bear the cost.  So because Francis wasn’t prepared to contribute more than £20,000 (not of his money, but from us, his members’ money), we may all have to pay considerably more.  Thanks a bunch, friend.

The second flaw with UKPAC was the closed shop that meant only members of the three founding organisations, the APPC, CIPR and PRCA, could sign up to UKPAC.  Huge swathes of the lobbying profession were excluded by this misguided policy.  And, you’ve guessed it, Francis was the strongest advocate for the closed shop.

So a cynic might argue that Francis knifed UKPAC before it even got off the ground.  It certainly looks that way to me, which is why I oppose Francis so profoundly on his approach to UKPAC.  My new company, The Professional Lobbying Company, will shortly apply for membership of the PRCA.  I’m sure Francis will welcome us.  But, dear friend, don’t expect us to be uncritical members when we think you have got it wrong.

The Lobbyists’ Charter

Standup4lobbying has this morning obtained an exclusive copy of the draft new lobbyists’ charter. We can reveal that the charter is intended to be the centrepiece of the new campaign to boost the reputation of lobbyists.  Individual lobbyists, and all who believe in the right of professional lobbyists to ply their trade with pride, will be invited to sign up to the campaign based on the charter.

The draft charter is as follows:

• Lobbying is a fundamental democratic right of us all
• Professional lobbying should be conducted at all times in a professional and ethical manner
• Professional lobbyists assist the democratic process by helping to ensure that public policy is subject to rigorous examination and argument. They present information that allows the policy process to be better informed
• It is entirely legitimate for an organisation to use the services of a professional lobbyist, whether by employing them directly or by hiring them through a lobbying company
• Professional lobbyists should be subject to a rigorous Code of Conduct, whether on a self-regulatory or statutory basis, designed to enshrine high professional and ethical standards to the benefit of all
• To ensure that professional lobbyists offer services of the highest standards, structured training and continuing professional development programmes should be developed

So, what do you think? A number of lobbyists and supporters of lobbying have already commented on the draft.  Please let me know your thoughts, either through the comments box below or by emailing me at mark@standup4lobbying.org.  And watch-out for the full launch of the new website, www.standup4lobbying.org, in the very near future.