The corporate capture of government is becoming ever more complete. Take this from the Guardian this morning, talking about the ability of the Big 6 energy companies to fight Labour's plan to freeze their prices from within government itself because the Department for Energy is dependent upon staff they have seconded to it:
The firms would also use the employees they have already placed on secondments in the heart of government, and their scores of public affairs experts, to reinforce the carefully cultivated impression that they were indispensable to the government's plans to create a low-carbon energy system, sources said.
"The Department of Energy and Climate Change [Decc] is under the strong impression that it cannot do the things it wants to do without the big six — it just simply doesn't believe it is possible," another lobbyist said.
Current government policy, developed by the Conservatives while in opposition, was heavily influenced by two of the big six — EDF and British Gas-owner Centrica — according to industry sources: "EDF and Centrica are now just an offshoot of Decc — they are all so in bed with each other they are indistinguishable."
I am sure that this is true. Just as I know tax policy making is run by secondees from big firms of lawyers and accountants.
But this poses the real question for Miliband's team. Where are they going to turn for advice when they need it? They clearly could not run Decc on this basis. But who will they use?
And nor can they run the Treasury as a branch of PWC et al in future either. Again, where are they going to turn for advice?
If Labour is to deliver that's an issue it has to resolve and I am not aware that right now it has done so. If it is committed to democracy it is something it has to do.
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:
If corporate/shareholder greed were not continuously expecting massive returns rather than caring for the nation (Daily mail take note!), something good could happen. When they get anxious about ‘investment’ this sounds to me like saying ‘we will not take the slightest dent in what the wheels of big finance can give us.
One of the problems of this. Over half of the shares are owned by overseas. Not tax havens, just companies and people. Look at who owns a large chunk of Sainsbury.
The UK is no longer controlled by the British people. Overseas investors rule the country.
Not as much as you are claiming, overall
http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2013/sep/28/stock-market-britain-under-foreign-ownership
“Britain is not up for sale. It has been sold already. Extraordinary figures from the Office of National Statistics this week reveal that, for the first time, more than half of the shares in Britain’s companies are now owned by foreigners.”
You’ve written about this issue before, Richard, but you are right to raise it again now as it’s of fundamental importance to any incoming government that may wish to enact policies that challenge the current bias to big business.
Historically it was argued that it was the civil service – and particularly so called mandarins (as in ‘Yes Minister’)that – obstructed or put the brake on any policies they deemed to radical. Then we went through a phase where it was the large and ever increasing number of consultants and the firms they worked for who exerted more and more influence on policy making and government.
But since the ever growing amount being spent on management, IT, or whatever type of consultant started to attract more and more negative attention – and the coalition pledged to reduce that spend – we have seen the revolving door into government that the Fulton Committee created in the 1960s taking on an ever increasing significance as the prefered mechanism for the corporate capture of the policy process in the UK. Sadly, but rather predictably, a good idea (encouraging the interchange of skills and experience between the public and private sectors to the mutaul benefit of both – which is what Fulton intended) has been warped and corrupted to fulfil an entirely different purpose.
You ask what can be done about it. Well, from what I see and read on a fairly regular basis there are quite a few people such as yourself and your Green New Deal partners (Larry Elliot, Anne Pettifor, etc), who are more than expert enough in their field to legitimately occupy key secondee and adviser roles (personally I’d have you as Chair of HMRC’s management board within a week of the election and Lin Homer sent on gardening leave, followed by a big clear out of the upper echelons of HMRC).
Then we have personnel from third sector organisations, such as FoE, Oxfam, etc, etc. For example, let’s counteract the years of bias in enviroment policy (which is, in fact, anti environment except where it further the interests of big business) by having advisers and secondees from Greenpeace, RSPB, and local environmental groups working at DECC.
Then there are some very good “social democrat” experts in a range of policy domains working at the various left of centre think tanks. I’m sure many would be only to keen to take on a more active role in government.
Finally, we have academia. Lets redress the suitation that’as gained pace this last decade where academics – many of whom are widely regarded internationally as experts in a wide range of fields – and the work they do have increasingly been ignored and marginalised by and within government, often because we are seen as a threat by the commercial entities who now exert so much influence in government and whose view and opinions we may very well challenge or expose for what they are.
Ultimately if Labour was really serious about restablishing a form of one nation social democracy I don’t think it would be difficult to put together a list of people who could be seconded into every government department to advance that agenda. But they would also, almost simultaneously, have to enact a major clear out of every single policy advisory, consultative, etc, group right across government, and reconstitute these so that they are representative of the society in which we live, not dominated by corporate interests and the 1%.
All doable – but it will take a very courageous and committed group of politicians, because the flack that will come their way from most of the media will be intense and endless. Despite Ed’s recent endevours, I doubt he has the resources at his disposal to do it.
I like many of those ideas (I refrain from comment on your suggestion for me)
I wish Labour had the courage….
interesting issue, but what would you suggest? where do they go for advice on tax policy if they need impartial advice (which would clearly be preferable)? UK Uncut will offer just as biased advice as any professional firm of advisor arguably. University professors maybe? Any solution is arguably imperfect.
But if there is no vested interest in the supply it is better than a case of there being one
I work in a very safe Labour local authority in the North. Senior management can barely go to the toilet without getting the advice from one of the big 4 accounting firms before they act.
Often at vast expense. Often when the accounting firm offers very little value.
Occasionally, advice is needed on something outside the expertise of officers (eg help with a tax minimisation strategy for a trading arm). But often enough, it is on a matter which can done by officers themselves.
I find that attitude deeply worrying
Why do we now have managers who are incapable of deciding?
Are you expecting a response or are you asking rhetorically? Are my revelations really news to you?
Have you ever worked in the public sector, particularly in a ‘coal face’ function such as finance or procurement where you get to see across a range of activities? It isn’t obvious from your published CV.
I’m not suggesting it’s awful – far from it, and we are living in truly fascinating times. Bad habits are getting squished out of the system every day and I’m optimistic about the future.
I’m just saying you can’t know much about it unless you’ve seen it for yourself. And if you did, I’m sure you would be quite happy to see clear boundaries around what the State should and shouldn’t get involved in.
They are no revelation at all
I am all too well aware of it from Treasury down
Reminds me of “Yes, Minister”:
“All governments departments are lobbies for the pressure groups they deal with. The Department of Education lobbies the government on behalf of teachers, the Department of Health lobbies for the doctors and hospital unions, the Department of Energy lobbies for oil companies and so on. Each department of State is actually controlled by the people it is supposed to be controlling.”
Gary, the situation described in your quotation no longer applies. Nowadays nearly all departments either chose or are forced to lobby for whichever set of commercial interests dominate their policy domain. The idea that the Department for Education or the Dept for Health would nowadays lobby for teachers or doctors and nurses respectively, or that DECC would lobby on behalf of Friends of the Earth or the RSPB is, unfortunately, laughable. As we saw at the weekend with Hunt and the DoH – departments of state routinely lobby against the public servants who provide a particular service, or third sector organisations who try to get the views of their members into a debate.
Nationalise the lot!
As I’ve said before: It is Labours climate change act that imposes a surcharge on electricity prices of some 20%, and it was a certain Mr Miliband that was the minister that imposed it.
As for FoE and Greenpeace….Greenpeace is an organisation that [now] exists to further its own financial future. Friends of the earth considers that the UK needs a sustainable population of 13 million, although how they intend to get there is something they are keeping quiet about. Not forgetting that there is every chance of the EU issuing a directive to increase VAT anyway…
As for Eds “good for business”…..well, biz gets its power at a much lower price than I do as a person, and claims the VAT back…they’re not paying the 13.4p/KWH that I am.
So, at the moment, being in cahoots with the energy suppliers gives people [over 60/certain benefits] an electricity “discount” of about £130, paid by the suppliers (and the cash comes from another imposition on users) and the £200+- winter fuel payment (again paid from taxation etc). I’ll bet that Ed will negotiate those away quite soon after coming into office.
But I’ll bet that the Scots vote to be free [-41 Labour] and after their re-election the boundaries will be altered quite rapidly,and unions funds will be ruled-out for political use. If Boris gets to replace Cameron….then it will [bookies] add another 20 seats to Conservatives (Ed isn’t a popular leader, so that will lose seats). I’ll have a small wager on the next winner being Cons at 60-70 over the next in line.
Corporate capture: Confirmed (both main parties)
Corporate state welfare continues.
This is basically a question of belief, any administration that looks to third parties to underwrite its message is doomed to fail. The prevailing political ethos promotes the opinions of unelected self interested elites and should be boldly rejected by those who seek to promote the interests of the broader social community and reject the interests of a self serving elite.
Like some of the commentators on here I also have a somewhat gloomy view of the future of this nation if Ed Miliband and the Labour party do not step up to the mark.
I am encouraged, however, by the reaction from, of all people, the big energy firms themselves. The immediate and almost hysterical reaction of both the companies and the market-place suggests a serious concern on their parts that they not only believe that the Labour party will win the next election, but are serious about their intention to freeze prices. In my experience companies like these, together with the stock markets are usually far better at gauging popular opinion than any of the political pundits.
And now, to re-enforce the hyperbole we have a shot across the bows of the Labour Party and the public in the shape of warnings about black-out Britain, reported in today’s (where else?) Daily Hate. The irony, of course, of this sort of behaviour, is that it is exactly what the NUM were accused of in the 1970’s.
The warning from, National Grid, is unambiguous. If the energy generators choose not to respond to requests for increased output Britain will be left out in the cold. Everybody got that??? You can’t upset the energy companies OR ELSE!!!
The courage required to face these bullies down will be very great indeed, and Britain may find that re-nationalisation is the only option. We would not be alone, I believe, in this for long. I understand the idea is already being mooted in Denmark, for one, and I strongly believe that other Governments will come to realise that the drain on National resources, together with the threat to National security (and it is!) is to great a cost to bear.
The Labour party must recognise this struggle for what it is, a fight to the death. Ed has put the ‘S’ word back on the table They must not flinch, must not hesitate. A protracted attempt to reach a mutually agreeable settlement in this matter will result in disaster for the Party. Ed needs to be brutal, swift and ruthless if he is to attract and retain the support of the British people.
I agree
The National Grid’s forecast #margin# on electricity supplies for the winter 92013) is 22 GW. That was against a normal winter peak demand expectation of 55.1GW and a forecast generator capacity of 77 GW.
Normal winter peak demand expected to be 55 GW
Forecast generator capacity of 77 GW
In a severe winter a demand of some 59 GW could be expected, and if occurring at a time of widespread freezing on the continent then the interconnectors could be zero flow.
Coupled with known zero wind during severe cold and we could be looking at a fall in capacity to 59 GW. close.
However, we also have another source of power in the STOR of some 3-4 GW, which, because of the much higher price paid, is increasing all the time. We could have a reserve of 6 GW of STOR (ironically, large amounts of the STOR are banks of diesel generators, privately built and operated)
Large users of power will be disconnected first.
So, not a large worry…at this present time we are taking 1.5 GW from France and 500 MW from Holland with a small assistance from wind, of 2 GW (from an installed plate capacity of 8 GW)
Coal generation is at 15 GW, nuclear providing a steady 8 GW and gas around 13 GW.
However, that 15 GW of coal is unlikely to be available by 2015….so more CCGT is being built (although one, Drax, has converted some steam generators to wood-pellet to benefit from sustainable-renewable “benefits”….the wood comes from the US)
Interestingly, some 40 shale drilling sites have been licenced in the UK.
The Cons will go into the election promising to provide cheaper energy by gas extraction from shale reserves, immediately reducing bills by removing renewables subsidies….so that’ll be goodbye to the LibDems, who will be hammered at the election with most of their votes converting to UKIP or back to the Cons.
Some interesting facts on power supply but I still think the warning has more to do with posturing to try to frighten the electorate ahead of an election!
I don’t think for one minute that your prediction of the Lib Dems getting hammered is wrong, but I doubt their voters will be turning either right, or Eurosceptic. The disaffected voters were, by and large, Europhiles who had believed for years that they were voting for a centrist/centre right party… until the truth emerged in 2010, and since. But then, as Nick Clegg revealed at the time of their party conference ‘Hell, we’ll get into bed with ANYONE, just so long as we can stay in power!’ Perhaps they should make that their campaign slogan!
Actually, in a few years we will be up the creek without a paddle. Energy speaking. By then the Large Combustion Plant Directive will have led to the closure of most coal-fuelled generating plant. Obviously it will be replaced, probably most of the replacement will be CCGC (a 600MW plant is due online next year with others in the pipeline). But gas is more expensive than coal, with respect to the energy available from it. And at the moment we buy enormous quantities from abroad, with large price rises due anytime now. Renewables, however environmentally attractive they seem (and looking at the source of materials and construction they are really not that attractive) they have poor performance at constant generation, with wind being the least reliable due to its intermittency (at times, many times, last winter when demand was high, wind was at near zero output).
If there had not been a massive recession in 2008, with its concomitant reduction in manufacturing, and large price rises leading to reduced consumption, we would have had blackouts a long time ago. Several nuclear plant are due to close soon, and they provide a constant output along with coal.
Politicians think short term. I think about this winter, so apart using grid power I also have a petrol generator….since no electricity means no heating as well….investing in another heat source is on the cards as well. You may well be right about election posturing, in which case the cons are better placed. Removing or lowering the renewables subsidy would lead to lower prices immediately. Doubtless there would be contractual problems…..but since those receiving the money are con supporters I doubt there will be much fuss.