I have written today about the enormous threat to free speech that the government is intending to rush through Parliament in early September in the form of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.
In that blog I urged people to write to Chloe Smith MP expressing their concerns about their continuing right to free speech. I have now written to Miss Smith, saying:
Dear Chloe Smith
I am writing to you to express my concern about Part 2 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.
In 1946 my grandfather who gave me my name died. His was a war death. In his forties he'd served on HMS Sheffield, helping sink the Bismarck before escorting convoys from Scapa Flow to Murmansk and back for months in a row. The stress eventually killed him. He has a war grave.
I always presumed he died for a reason. Yes he fought fascism, but he fought for something more than that. I believe he fought for the fundamental freedoms that went on to be encapsulated in the United Nation's declaration of human rights. That includes Article 19, which says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
I believe you are now intending to deny me that right. Part 2 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill will, if passed, quite specifically deny me the right to hold opinions and impart them without interference through any media. This is going to have a massive impact on my life in a great many areas.
As a chartered accountant, blogger and campaigner for tax reform — two of whose ideas (on a general anti-avoidance principle and country-by-country reporting) have been at least partly adopted by your government — I will be potentially barred from publishing my work, which is partly funded by donations given with the express intention that I seek to change public opinion on matters relating to tax justice, unless in the year prior to an election I:
1) register as a ‘recognised third party';
2) comply with the requirements of your proposed law;
3) report the donations I receive in an onerous fashion;
4) do not cooperate with others to publish opinions without risk of substantial additional obligations and penalties arising.
I wonder, is this your real intention? Do you really wish that debate on an issue of public concern, such as taxation, be restricted in such an onerous way in the year prior to a general election?
And do you really wish that those who share common opinion on such issues be prevented from saying so for fear of financial and criminal penalties being applied to them for simply saying they agree with each other?
Do you really, as a result, wish to deny me my freedom to speak without fear? And do you wish to deny me the chance to publish as I would want in free association with others?
From my reading of your Bill it would seem so to me.
More worryingly, I realise that this does not only apply to my work. The restrictions you plan would seem to apply to many of the organisations of which I am a member and to which I donate funds and which will not, without compliance with these extraordinary obligations you are proposing, be able to take part in normal dialogue and debate in the future.
The National Trust, RSPB and Norfolk Wildlife Trust, all of which I am a member of, quite clearly seek to change public opinion on matters relating to the environment which by no means all political parties agree with. All are charities, but are you now seeking to declare them political? If so, will you then remove their charitable status? Is it your intention that charities must not now ask why there are problems, but should only seek to redress harm caused, without raising questions that would seek to prevent recurrence?
Christian Aid, Oxfam and other charities I support campaign on tax justice. Would you now seek to stop them doing this work in the year before an election even though the G8 has recognised the importance of their work on this issue?
And as a member of union I also note that the TUC will now no longer be able to hold a conference next year — because your Bill will effectively outlaw it. No doubt that will be true for Unite — the union of which I am a member — as well. Did you really want to deny the biggest mass movement in the UK a voice? Don't you know what happens to states that suppress unions? And aren't you aware that to deny a union the right to represent their members' views is contrary to Article 23 of the UN declaration?
Finally, I am a Quaker. The Quaker testimonies are to peace, truth, simplicity and equality. By no means all political parties share Quaker interpretation on these issues. Is it now to be the case that you will deem an expression of religious belief to be political lobbying? And in that case, where does this end?
Your Bill undermines fundamental freedoms that the people of this country have fought for.
Your Bill will undermine the democratic process by denying many the freedom to partake in it.
Your Bill will undermine the right of people to associate and publish as they wish.
Your Bill will create a climate of fear when people speak out.
Your Bill may well criminalise the right to peaceful protest.
Your Bill seeks to impose a silence few will dare challenge.
Is that what you really intend?
If so, please say why, openly and clearly because I really want to know why you are taking basic human rights — the rights my grandfather fought for when he risked his life and eventually lost it — away from me and millions of others in this country whose only passion is that we live in a country that is better for all of us.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Richard Murphy
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Dear Richard – I have just sent Ms Chloe (my MP, alas, instead of the wonderful Ian Gibson, unwisely levered out by Gordon Brown – another of his mistakes, as Ian would surely have held on to Norwich North) the following e-mail, via 38 Degrees:
=======================================
I have had the privilege of reading the letter sent to you in this matter by Mr Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK, and wish to record my full agreement with the contents and opinions contained in that letter.
That a Government which did not win a majority in the last election, but fettled together a Coalition which, far from seeking to govern in the interests of all, given the weak and partial state of its mandate, should bring in such a law is hardly surprising, in view of the fact that your whole strategy seems to be based on a “divide and rule” strategy of setting the “have littles” against the “have almost nothings”, with a cruel and ill-founded demonisation of the poor, the marginalized and the disabled is hardly surprising.
But the introduction of this law passes all belief and reasonable expectation, given that it is clearly designed to hinder and hobble the the activities of those campaigning to see that you, and your equally unrepresentative Coalition partners, reap the electoral reward your unfair and unjust activities and policies deserve.
Where is the REAL attempt to curb the power of lobbying and hidden, dirty money? Will the Government, for example, be expelling from the House of Lords those who have been “ennobled” by your boss, Mr Cameron, in gratitude for donations to the Conservative Party? Vis : Lord Popat (££274,000 in total); Lord Ediston (£1,137,000 in total); Lord Fink (how apt a name – £2,668.00 in total); Lord Magan (£811,00 in total); Lord Nash (£250,000 in total); Lord Bamford (£2,000,000 in total) – most of these “donations” (surely better characterised as bribes to get their bums on the Benches in the lords, and the opportunity the bend the ear of Mr Cameron) being way above the limits set out in your appalling Bill.
I won’t hold my breath over this, but I call upon you to recommend the immediate and irreversible scrapping of this shameful attempt to gerrymander the electoral process, and to cling onto power, and instead seek to make your case – on fair and equal footing with all other Parties and interested pressure and campaigning groups at the tribunal of public opinion – a Tribunal where, unlike the Employment Tribunal, we voters WON’T have to fork out £1,200 for the privilege of appearing there to defend our rights. And be aware – you can only push the British people so far, before they stand up to do just that.
Shame on you, and the Administration from which you have taken your orders.
===============================================
Frankly, this Bill really stinks, and must be defeated, by mass civil disobedience, if necessary – for I too abhor violence. But I very much fear that some WILL turn to violent opposition to a Government that is clearly following some of the worst excesses of State Governments in the USA e.g. North Carolina, which has rammed the most illiberal voter-restraint law ever seen, and Wisconsin, where even State Senators have been threatened with arrest for merely stopping to WATCH a protest taking place in the State Capitol.
Apologies for typos in the above detailed figures: SHOULD READ:
Lord Fink (how apt a name — £2,668,000 in total);
Lord Magan (£811,000 in total)
Keying-in on a Blackberry is not easy, and prone to error. Sorry.
Did your grandfather tell you or leave you evidence that he did what he did in the second world war specifically for some not-yet existing UN declaration of human rights? Or are you just assuming the content of your grandfathers beliefs or even worse, manipulating the second world war into a false historical narrative about ‘freedom and free speech’ and a host of other nicities that had sweet FA to do with the war?
I mean, I don’t see what you grandfather who has been dead for like, 60+ years, has got to do with anything.
You may think he died for the heck of it
I think the evidence of 1945 and the votes of those returning from the war showed very clearly what their sacrifice had been for
I never met my grandfather: I was born 12 years after he died but he left a legacy that I think I have fairly reflected
Of course, only he could disagree, but can’t. You certainly cannot
Shame on you for the assumptions that those who died fighting against fascism were simpletons who fought only because they were told to and that their deaths held no relevance for the future.
She’s my MP too – I emailed her yesterday (your letter, and Andrew Dickie’s, are much better than mine).
Did anyone else notice that she’s against transparency when it comes to revealing how the £77 million (according to the Telegraph) spent by civil servants on travel? She vetoed that.
This will not prevent any of the real scandals of lobbying, of big companies placing employees in Whitehall (Chloe Smith used to work for Deloitte, who placed her as an intern in Conservative HQ, I believe), of ‘corporate capture’ of the government.
Sarah, The Daily Mail (accessed via Google – not a paper I would read, even if paid to do so, except to research some point) ran the following story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052046/David-Cameron-gave-MP-aged-29-Treasury-job-wrongly-thinking-accountant.html
So – Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (But who will keep an eye on those keeping an eye on things) indeed!
A management consultant eh … that is a breed I have never trusted.
I never understood their reports – the individual words yes the meaning no. All they ever seemed to want to do was convince the management of the companies I worked for that they needed to restructure and spend money with them to implement said restruturing. Then a few years later they’d convince them to rstructure again. Great for them but what a toal waste of everyones time and resources and it nearly always eneded up with redundancies too.
Nope, never trust a management consultant a load of hypesters – or something that closely rhymes with that, take your pick.
Management consultants are the people you bring in when you need to do something, and want someone else to blame if it goes wrong. Or if you’re out of your depth but need to do something to justify whatever crazy wage you’re drawing.
They’re not *all* [insert uncomplimentary word of choice], but most of them are entirely unqualified to give the advice that they give. At best, they are usually just a grossly over-priced ‘fresh pair of eyes’ over an organisation.
One of the sad features of the Blair/Brown years was the managerialist cult which led to a chronic infestation of the public sector with management consultants.
@ Verth and Lee T – Management Consultants do have their place, as I know, having worked for STC in their HQ Organisation and Methods Department. But I was 35 when I joined them, and had been a teacher, and before that a technical translator, so at least I had SOME background, some “hinterland”, as Dennis Healey phrased it. And I always took advice from my older colleagues, well recognizing that they knew far more about business and industry than I did.
But Chloe was about 25 when she was a “Consultant”. For goodness sake, what did she know about ANYTHING at that time? I CERTAINLY wouldn’t want to take management advice from a 25-year old who had never “managed” anything, or even worked in a real job. Doing the photocopying, maybe, and collecting some of the stats upon which a REAL O&M/Management Consultant might make a REAL recommendation (as I did, once I’d served my “apprenticeship” – around 3 to 4 years in)
I repeat my wish to see MP’s only allowed to stand when they have a) either reached the age of, say, 30 or b) can show they have done 10 years of REAL work (not as a Party Intern). So aon or daughter of a farmer COULD be in Parliament at 21 or 22, as they could have been an integral part of their parents’ farm, but for most people they would need to be at least 26 before they could be elected.
Andrew
I well remember once doing some training in the City for a new graduate intake who were all – on day one – management consultants
I don’t think I said the right thing about that
Oddly I wasn’t invited back
But I knew damned well that a) they could not use a photocopier properly and b) they didn’t think it their job to learn and both disqualified them in my view
The US Senate has a wide age rule on being elected. I have to say I see some reason for it here – maybe as you suggest
Richard
The change to this Bill I would like to see is to limit it just to neo-liberals, who are a complete menace to our democracy and who are just peddlers of abuse, dressed up as ‘freedom of speech’.
I doubt your brave grandpa died to protect that!
For example, I would like to see registration and regular monitoring of anyone who advocates that markets have complete information and can meet all human needs. No doubt Professor Mike Devereux and his Oxford Tax Abuse Group would need to be the first registered! Hooray, I say.
Keep the Bill, but just say ‘this is limited only to those who peddle neoliberal ideas and to those who comment approvingly of them’. This would ensure you and the TJN and TR are protected.
I admit I am not that biased
But what is clear is that the LibDem excuses on this are straightforward deceipt
Richard
Not being funny but I’m not sure why this will be such a big deal. Could you perhaps elucidate ?
You’ve said the new law will require you to;
1) register as a ‘recognised third party’;
is that a problem ? I mean you’re scarcely low-profile.
2) comply with the requirements of your proposed law;
which are what ?
3) report the donations I receive in an onerous fashion;
sorry, but you are an accountant! Can’t you just give them a ledger print-out?
4)do not cooperate with others to publish opinions without risk of substantial additional obligations and penalties arising.
This does sound more intrusive but I think you’d need to say what the “substantial additional obligations and penalties” are.
I don’t want to sound unsympathetic & you may be right but I don’t think this letter makes your case as plainly as you, clearly, want it to.
Or, to put it another way, for those of us that aren’t v politically active, can you express more simply HOW this is an infringement of our basic rights?
{Eg it isn’t hard to see how it is a scary infringement of our basic rights to hold a guy for 9 hours without cautioning him for no other reason than he’s the boyfriend of a journalist who holds material you don’t want published}.
Why should I have to register to speak?
Or account if I want to hold my head up?
And why is that right limited if I cooperate with others as money limits then apply to us all and not each of us individually?
Of course I could register and account – although the Electoral Commission has now idea how it could manage it
But the point is why should I have to. These are breaches of my right to free speech and free association
That’s what is so important
Richard, I agree wholeheartedly.
Lobbying is a fundamental right of a country with freedom of speech.
I cannot fathom why MP’s, who often have very little experience of life, want to curtail the most basic of our democratic rights.
It is indeed MP’s themselves who are breaking rules/laws which already exist, by not declaring interests when they should.
As per usual instead of enforcing the law a few half-wit MP’s attempt to come up with new ones. (Dangerous dogs act – and I’ve never met a dog who’d read that one!)
Geoffrey
a v bad example, imo. It always surprises me how so many commentators will talk of this as an example of a “bad” bill. Why should there be a dangerous dogs act?
Erm, because certain dogs, notably Rotties & the various Pit Bull derivations are capable of killing any old, weak or small human being.
Unlike the US we don’t encourage people to walk the street carrying metallic killing machines but we seem all too happy to allow people to walk the street leading hairy killing machines. Would you have a problem if I took a leaf out of Roberto Duran’s book & walked the streets with a lion ? What’s the difference between a Pit Bull & a Lion? – they both can kill rather easily.
Seems as though these pages now have a problem with transparency. A lack of transparency leads to abuse.
Editorial freedom is not a transparency issue
Stop being fatuous
Then pages such as this should be transparent in both their funders and associated ilk.
I disclose all my main funding sources
I had already sent an email, being alerted by one of the campaign websites-38 degrees. I was moved by your reference to your grandad. My father was a merchant navy officer who volunteered for the RN Hong Kong voluntary Reserve. He was captured on Christmas day 1941 and served the rest of the war as a POW and was tortured because he was the senior officer. He died when I was young. His elder brother died in WW1, the next served in Palestine in 1918 and fought in the Far East in WW2. The youngest helped plan the invasion of Normandy and was awarded an OBE. My elder brother served on HMS Glasgow-a similar cruiser- in the ’50s. I feel strongly that it is up to us to preserve the freedoms they defended.
Their politics were Conservative but I strongly suspect they would not have agreed with this partisan bill.
No one I’ve spoken to about, knows about it. These issues are not being debated in most newspapers and TV news, as far as I’m aware.It appears we are being denied information, rather than being lied to. This is why it is so important that we are free to access information from blogs such as yours Richard.
Thanks Ian
It’s interesting to note that the far right blogosphere think I am wrong to raise this issue
Much of it will not, of course, comply, being based offshore
Richard, if the far-right blogsphere think that then it tells us all we need to know about the true intention of this bill and its backers. It’s about the legalisation and institutionalisation of bias and yet another device to advance the power over and control of government and the policty by the “elite” (i.e. the 1% and big business). You are absolutely right to fight this bill and I for one shall be adding my protest tomorrow. And good for you for bringing it into the light of day, as like many others I’m sorry to say I’d missed its significance.
I agree.
But this issue, and the David Miranda case, are both leading to those who have advocated for this brand of state interference objecting when it’s played against their interests.
I’m not going to accuse anyone of inconsistency or double-standards. All I’m going to do is ask that next time someone with different ideas to you questions your desire for more state power in certain areas, don’t just assume that they do so because they’re a ‘neo-liberal’ or someone who doesn’t believe in ‘civil society’.
Some of us see the state as something distinct from the people, and something which should not be granted ever-more powers. That doesn’t necessarily mean we don’t believe in the social contract, with welfare, with the regulation of markets, with collective funding of health and education, and with other such values and ideas.
Where the power of the state is wide-ranging, it will be abused. That is why, for example, I would be nervous of an HMRC with the power that you would grant it. Where a power is narrow then we are protected, but it will be derided as ineffective because it can be avoided. There is no easy answer. But I will point out, as I have done before, that bottom-up action on tax abuse and invasive journalism.. which sought to hit the ‘offenders’ in the pockets, has proved far more effective than top-down state action ever could.
A bill which is, supposedly, there to restrict corporate lobbying (which, for the sake of argument; we’ll say is desirable) can now be used to quash debate. What we have is politicians, once again, trying to protect their power. Instead of trying to diminish the influence of money in politics by banning things.. why not do it by enabling those of us who don’t have money to have more of a voice.. why not aim for more democracy, not less? Why?? Because that’s not what *they* want.
My biggest frustration with left-wing commentators, is that they seem to have been blind to the shocking illiberalism of this government, and it’s predecessor, and other governmental bodies (councils etc) of all colours. It’s the right-wingers who’ve been shouting about the idiocy of things like ‘anti-terrorism’, minimum alcohol pricing, and the absurd war on e-cigarettes. Those issues may not concern you at all.. but they’re all part of the same anti-democratic attitude. And don’t get me started on the EU (though, at the very least, ‘the left’ has woken up to the fact that the EU is *not* trying to serve the interests of most of us). They stopped caring what we think a long time ago.. so I’m damned if I’m going to campaign for them being given more power.
I’m a huge fan of all of Aaron Sorkin’s TV shows. The West Wing.. The Newsroom, Studio 60.. and there’s a common theme in all of them. It’s ‘wouldn’t it be great if the people with power over us were better at using it’. It makes great television.. but, in real life, Martin Sheen isn’t ever going to be president.
left wingers are naturally liberal
You’ll note that it is neo-liberal governments that are not
I do not think it confused to say so
“left wingers are naturally liberal”
And, yet, they seem, unable to elect people who share their values.
That’s, perhaps, because they’re never given that option. Politics, I’m afraid, does not attract or encourage people who are naturally liberal. It’s about gaining power… not giving it away.
I see no problem with you having to comply, after all you are taxpayer subsidised.
You entirely miss the point, don’t you?
Of course I comply with requirements to disclose my trading – voluntarily going beyond what is legally required
But the issue is here why I should account weekly for the right to free speech
Please address the real issue
And also tell me what public subsidy I get?
Charities are entitled to various tax reliefs – a government subsidy – and you receive funds from charities. Ergo, you are government and taxpayer subsidised.
No, they do
I don’t
Richard,
I think there is an issue that the bill tries to address. Just because the bill will do more harm than good, doesn’t mean there is no problem. If we look to America, the legislature is wholly owned by and run for the benefit of the 1%. The absence there of rules on lobbying and pressure groups defeats any attempt to bring election expenses under control. The danger of defending unfettered lobbying is that we will end up with the American system, where money buys the result. Although the bill is designed to hobble the left, might it not do more harm to the right in the long run?
I agree there is an issue on lobbying.
I have little doubt that the Bill exploits that to allow the type of lobbying you find so offensive to continue whilst denying free speech to those participating in genuine debate
I have no problem with a register of lobbyists – and being registered if need be – but I do to this Bill