Black spiders and transparency

Tweet Whether or not the so-called 'black-spider' writings of Charles Windsor ever see the light of day makes little difference to my view of the appropriateness of making him head of state on the demise of his mother.  My objection is to the role of heredity in making the appointment, not particularly to him as a person.  But I do find the government's reasoning in keeping his letters secret more than a little curious.

They are saying that it's important for his future role that he is seen to be politically neutral, but that it doesn't matter if that's simply an inaccurate illusion.  It's not, apparently, the holding of highly partisan views which makes him non-neutral, nor is it the sharing of those views with ministers in forthright terms.  It's not even whether we know that he's written such letters or not which damages his neutrality - it's only the publication of his actual words which does that.  'Justice doesn't need to be done, it only needs to be seen to be done' would be an odd mantra for a minister to adopt, yet that seems to be a parallel.

From a more common-sense and everyday perspective than that possessed by government ministers - past and present; apparently Labour were also consulted before the decision was taken - it's surely the writing of the letters which damages any pretence at neutrality, not their publication.

Some years ago, I worked on an IT conversion project which was officially going to be 'transparent to the users'.  That meant, said one of my colleagues, that 'the users will see right through it'.  It seems to me that the transparency of Charles' neutrality fits that definition quite nicely.

Controlling lobbyists

Tweet

Monday’s Western Mail contained this robust defence of lobbying and lobbyists from – as it happens – a lobbyist.  The article issued a dire warning that democracy itself is endangered by any attempt by government to control lobbying.  A little over the top, methinks.

Lobbying is, as the author says, a long-standing part of our democratic process, and I share his concern that a government proposal which applies only to ‘third party’ lobbyists “will not fulfil its main purpose of increasing transparency”.  That strikes me, however, as an argument for extending the scope of the proposal rather than opposing it.

I understand the concern he expresses about whether a comprehensive proposal might lead to a situation where no group, organisation, or individual could put any case to ministers without having first registered as a lobbyist, and posing the question in that way underlines the complexity of the issue.  But the fact that an issue is complex is not an excuse for ignoring it, which seems to be the desired outcome of the article.

It’s worth getting back to the nature of the concern many of us have about lobbying and lobbyists.  That concern is not about whether individuals, groups, or companies can talk to ministers about their concerns, and seek to promote particular approaches and solutions.  In itself, that is simply a normal part of democracy.  The concern is about fairness and transparency.

Do those who have enough money to spend on receptions, hospitality, and professional PR merchants, and even to employ former politicians and civil servants, enjoy an unfair advantage in gaining access to politicians and therefore in putting their case over and above ordinary members of the public?  And is there a danger that, as a result, policy decisions may be taken which favour those groups rather than the interests of society as a whole?

Politicians do not have to be corrupt to be swayed by regular contact (even if in a social environment with no mention of the policies which the hosts wish to change) to lean in a particular direction.  The whole process is simply relying on the social nature of people.  The government’s current proposals may well be deficient in getting to grips with the issues, but surely there can be little disagreement about their existence.

What threatens democracy is not an attempt to control and regulate lobbying, but the continuation of a situation where it appears that influence over policy can be bought.