Broken Britain.

fleet street fox: Broken Britain.: IF politicians have one thing in their favour it's the fact that we can sack them. It doesn't happen very often, because people don't like...

IRANIANS WE LOVE U: a message to Iran from Israel

Plutocracy, Pure and Simple

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 21st February 2012

Shocking, fascinating, entirely unsurprising: the leaked documents, if authentic, confirm what we suspected but could not prove. The Heartland Institute, which has helped lead the war against climate science in the United States, is funded among others by tobacco firms, fossil fuel companies and one of the billionaire Koch brothers(1).

It appears to have followed the script written by a consultant to the Republican party, Frank Luntz, in 2002. “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”(2)

Luntz’s technique was pioneered by the tobacco companies and the creationists: teach the controversy. In other words, insist that the question of whether cigarettes cause lung cancer, natural selection drives evolution or burning fossil fuels causes climate change is still wide open, and that both sides of the “controversy” should be taught in schools and thrashed out in the media.

The leaked documents appear to show that, courtesy of its multi-millionaire donors, the institute has commissioned a global warming curriculum for schools, which teaches that “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy” and “whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial.”(3).

The institute has claimed that it is “a genuinely independent source of research and commentary”(4) and that “we do not take positions in order to appease or avoid losing support from individual donors”(5). But the documents, if authentic, reveal that its attacks on climate science have been largely funded by a single anonymous donor and that “we are extinguishing primarily global warming projects in pace with declines in his giving”(6).

The climate change deniers it funds have made similar claims to independence. For example, last year Fred Singer told a French website, “of course I am not funded by the fossil fuel lobbies. It’s a completely absurd invention.”(7) The documents suggest that the institute, funded among others by the coal company Murray Energy, the oil company Marathon and the former Exxon lobbyist Randy Randol, has been paying him $5000 a month(8).

Robert Carter has claimed that he “receives no research funding from special interest organisations”(9). But the documents suggest that Heartland pays him $1,667 a month(10). Among the speakers at its conferences were two writers for the Telegraph (Christopher Booker and James Delingpole(11,12)). The Telegraph group should now reveal whether and how much they were paid by the Heartland Institute.

It seems to be as clear an illustration as we have yet seen of the gulf between what such groups call themselves and what they really are. Invariably, organisations arguing for regulations to be removed, top taxes to be reduced and other such billionaire-friendly policies call themselves freemarket or conservative thinktanks. But according to David Frum, formerly a fellow at one such group – the American Enterprise Institute – they “increasingly function as public-relations agencies”(13). The message they send to their employees, he says, is “we don’t pay you to think, we pay you to repeat.”

The profits of polluting or reckless companies and banks and the vast personal fortunes of their beneficiaries are largely dependent on the regulations set by governments. This is why the “thinktanks” campaign for small government. If regulations robustly defend the public interest, the profits decline. If they are weak, the profits rise. Billionaires and big business buy influence to insulate themselves from democratic control. It seems to me that the so-called thinktanks are an important component of this public relations work.

Their funding, in most cases, is opaque. When I challenged some of the most prominent of such groups in the UK, only one would reveal the identity of its donors. The others refused(14). Disgracefully, their lack of accountability does not prevent some of them from registering as charities and claiming tax exemption.

The Charity Commission in England and Wales, negligent, asleep at the wheel, is becoming a threat to democracy. These organisations are not trying to restore historic buildings or rescue distressed donkeys. They are seeking to effect political change in highly contentious areas. The minimum requirement for all such groups – whether they are on the left or on the right – is that they should disclose their major sources of income so that we know on whose behalf they speak(15). The commission is providing cover for multi-millionaires and corporations who are funding undisclosed campaigns to enhance their own wealth under the guise of charity, and obliging the rest of us to pay for it through tax exemptions. If that’s charity, a police siren is music.

The use of so-called thinktanks on both sides of the Atlantic seems to me to mirror the use of super political action committees (superPACs) in the US. Since the Supreme Court removed the limits on how much one person could give to a political campaign, the billionaires have achieved almost total control over politics. An article last week on TomDispatch revealed that in 2011 just 196 donors provided nearly 80% of the money raised by superPACs(16).

The leading Republican candidates have all but abandoned the idea of mobilising popular support. Instead they use the huge funds they raise from billionaires to attack the credibility of their opponents through television ads. Yet more money is channelled through 501c4 groups – tax-exempt bodies supposedly promoting social welfare – which (unlike the superPACs) don’t have to reveal the identity of their donors. TomDispatch notes that “serving as a secret slush fund for billionaires evidently now qualifies as social welfare.”(17)

The money wins. This is why Republicans swept up so many seats in the mid-term elections(18), and why the surviving Democrats were scarcely distinguishable from their rivals. It is why Obama, for all his promise, appears incapable of governing in the public interest. What can he tell the banks: “do what I say or I won’t take your money any more”? How can he tax the billionaires when they have their hands around his throat? Where your treasure is there will your heart be also(19).

This is plutocracy pure and simple. The battle for democracy is now a straight fight against the billionaires and corporations reshaping politics to suit their interests. The first task of all democrats must be to demand that any group, of any complexion, seeking to effect political change should reveal its funders.

www.monbiot.com

Some of the research for this column was carried out by Simon Day: www.renouncereverb.com

References:

1. http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Fundraising%20Plan.pdf

2. Frank Luntz, 2002. The Environment: a cleaner, safer, healthier America. Straight Talk, pp131-146. The Luntz Research Companies.

3. http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Fundraising%20Plan.pdf

4. http://heartland.org/policy-documents/we-must-get-along-get-along

http://heartlandinstitutechicago.wordpress.com/about/

5. http://heartland.org/funding

6. http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Binder1%20%282%29.pdf

7. http://www.contrepoints.org/2011/09/04/43947-le-giec-interdit-le-debat-scientifique

8. http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Heartland%20Budget%20%282%29.pdf

9. http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

10. http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Heartland%20Budget%20%282%29.pdf

11. http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/24901.pdf

12. http://climateconference.heartland.org/james-delingpole/

13. http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

14. http://www.monbiot.com/2011/09/12/think-of-a-tank/

15. See http://www.monbiot.com/2011/10/17/show-me-the-money/

16. Ari Berman, 16th February 2012. The .0000063% Election. http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175504/

17. As above.

18. “a simple statistic from the 2010 races: of fifty-three competitive House districts where Rove and his compatriots backed Republicans with “independent” expenditures that easily exceeded similar expenditures made on behalf of Democrats—often by more than $1 million per district, according to Public Citizen—Republicans won fifty-one.” http://www.thenation.com/article/165733/after-citizens-united-attack-super-pacs

19. Matthew 6:21.

Diary of a Benefit Scrounger: WARNING - TOXIC GOVERNMENT

Diary of a Benefit Scrounger: WARNING - TOXIC GOVERNMENT: What to say today? We knew that our government had reached levels of arrogant prickery previously unseen in the UK. Yes, even Blair backed d...

An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place | Owen Jones

The Guardian 1 February 2012


Poor old martyred Mr Fred Goodwin. According to ex-CBI supremo Lord Digby Jones, this latter-day Joan of Arc is the victim of a "lynch mob" mentality. Quite right: it's the unemployed and poor who are supposed to get a kicking from the tabloids, not multimillionaire pillars of the establishment. Has the world gone mad?

But now the poor bloke has had his knighthood shredded, it's a good time to rethink the whole honours system. For a start, handing out "Orders of the British Empire" strikes me as more than a little tasteless in the first place. Poet Benjamin Zephaniah turned down his OBE nearly a decade ago because "it reminds me of how my foremothers were raped and my forefathers brutalised". He has a point: as a country we're far from coming to terms with the barbarity of empire. As Mike Davis points out in the seminal Late Victorian Holocausts, millions of Indians starved to death in unnecessary famines under British rule. It is surely possible to recognise achievements without celebrating this murderous era.

It's not just the name that's the problem, though. These days, we barely even blink at the fact honours are routinely handed out by prime ministers to their mates or to establishment patsies. Sometimes it appears that contributions to party coffers – rather than to society – is the way to go about getting a knighthood. I'm sure we can all be proud of hedge fund manager Paul Ruddock being knighted this year for his inspiring contribution to British society: most notably, making £100m out of the collapse of Northern Rock, and depositing £500,000 in Tory party bank accounts since 2003.

Those who have actually made contributions to society generally end up with the bargain basement honour, the MBE. I'm pretty confident that Maureen Adams, handed an MBE this year for dedicating her career to helping those affected by HIV/Aids, has had more of a positive net impact on society than, say, Centrica chairman Roger Carr, who was knighted last year after prices were raised by 7% just as winter approached.

So let's ditch the whole system and start from scratch. This morning, the BBC's Evan Davis proposed that, if he ran the system, "honours would go to people whose material compensation vastly under-rewards them for their achievements". That's a great place to start, although those that society depends on to function and who often scrape by on poverty wages should, of course, be paid properly, too.

But if we're going to have honours, they should surely reflect people's social worth. The New Economics Foundation found that for every £1 a hospital cleaner is paid, £10 of social value is created. City bankers, on the other hand, destroyed £7 for every £1 they created. But who is more likely to be honoured as things stand?

So here's my suggestion. Instead of knighthoods for wealthy parasites, let's have a new honour, which could be called Pillars of Society. The title would be pretty self-explanatory. Establishment types would be barred; let's stop celebrating wealth and power for the sake of it. Instead, let's start by recognising the efforts of those increasingly demonised as "vested public sector interests" who "leach off the taxpayer": like nurses, refuse collectors, lollipop ladies, teachers, and so on.

There's a whole host of other Pillars of Society, too: community workers; activists who dedicate their lives to fighting racism, sexism and homophobia; trade union reps who fight the corner of workers in the workplace; those who fight for the sick and disabled; volunteers and charity workers; and those who show great bravery or commit great sacrifices for others.

Instead of starting every year with a roll-call of millionaires, senior civil servants and royal servants, we'd have an inspiring insight into the best British society has to offer. It would provide a much-needed platform for those we all depend on, but who are normally marginalised or completely ignored.

Of course, such an honours system would mean challenging the way we look at society. Rather than venerating the well-heeled and well-connected, we'd be more interested in championing working people and those who fight to make Britain a better place.

Oh, and I'd like to get the ball rolling by nominating my Pillar of Society: Helena Button, who was an inspiring primary school teacher. Let's hear your nominations.

Move Your Money

David Cameron: the master of cynical propaganda

Owen Jones

guardian.co.uk, Fri 13 Jan 2012 10.47 GMT

Comment

When David Cameron tires of this prime minister lark (don't feel you have to take your time, Dave), he should write a self-help book for aspiring rightwing politicians. It could be titled I Got Away With It – And Here's How You Can Too. I can think of some of the promo lines: "Are you a passionate believer in free-market economics who has been lumbered with the biggest crisis of capitalism since the 1930s?" "Are you keen to turn a crisis that looks like the death knell of all you believe in into your greatest opportunity yet?"

Since Lehman Brothers went under, I've watched in awe as the right transformed a crisis of the market into a crisis of public spending. Even as a battery of cuts suck jobs and growth out of the economy, Cameron's Tories still define the political debate. Despite winning just 36% of the vote, they look increasingly like Britain's third radically transformative government since the war – the other two being the Attlee and Thatcher administrations.

How are they getting away with it? Having a supine media and an opposition still lacking a coherent alternative helps. But I have to hand it to them: this government has one of the most effective propaganda machines of modern times. If Cameron was to pen a book explaining his secrets, he could blow Machiavelli's The Prince out of the water. While he mulls it over, I'll suggest some key tips.

First, revise the past. Cameron's Tories have driven it into our skulls that we have a deficit because Labour indulged in the most shameless spending spree since Imelda Marcos's shoe collection. Collapsing tax revenues and soaring unemployment never get a mention. But, above all, Cameron has managed to make us forget that he backed Labour's spending plans until the end of 2008. In July 2007, for example, he referred back to Thatcher and argued: "It is not now necessary in the same way to mend Britain's broken economy, but it is absolutely necessary to mend Britain's broken society." At the time he expressed few serious concerns about New Labour's economic management, leading to accusations he was acting as a mere thinktank for Gordon Brown's government.

Second, demonise anyone in receipt of public money. If unemployed or disabled people are just a faceless mass of scroungers, for example, who cares if their benefits are cut? The press certainly helps: this week's Sunday Times featured the headline "End the something for nothing culture", above a picture of the Gallagher family from the comedy-drama Shameless. According to the tagline, the entirely fictional Gallaghers "typify the 'money for nothing' culture". Other grotesque caricatures from TV – such as Vicky Pollard and Wayne and Waynette Slob – are also being wheeled out by journalists as supposedly accurate portrayals. Sitcoms and sketch shows are being used as political devices to hack slices off the welfare state. But it is being fuelled by government rhetoric on benefits. "If we want them to tap dance, then they will tap dance," a Whitehall official is quoted in the Sunday Times piece as saying of benefit recipients. It's a callous attempt to strip unemployed people of their humanity, but it works.

There's a similar approach with public sector workers. Instead of being people who teach kids, treat people with cancer and empty bins, they become "vested interests" and parasites on the taxpayer. It becomes so much easier, then, to make the case that they should cough up to pay off the deficit.

Third, clothe radical ideas in the language of moderation. Thatcher had an abrasive style, to say the least: all that "the enemy within", "no such thing as society" and "No! No! No!" From the outset, a coalition can easily present itself as inherently consensual and full of compromise. But Cameron is going where Thatcher never even dared – on cuts and the NHS, for example – and yet seems far more reasonable than his party's adored Iron Lady. As opposition leader, Cameron galavanted around the Arctic with huskies, got mocked for wanting to "hug a hoodie" and replaced the Tory logo with a tree. He uses the language of the "centre ground" – a term politicians of all stripes use to define their policies as normal, sane and moderate, and anybody who believes differently is so politically unhinged they're not even worth engaging with.

The biggest cuts since the 1920s become a regrettable, unavoidable means of slashing the deficit, rather than a desirable attempt to drive back the state. But we know both Nick Clegg and Cameron are ideologically committed to such an agenda. When Clegg was elected Liberal Democrat leader in December 2007, he made a Reaganite pitch for an "alternative to the discredited politics of big government". In October 2009, Cameron argued that "government got too big", and before the election, he argued that the cuts should remain in place even when the crisis was over. But, on the whole, the government has convinced a sizeable chunk of the population that it's just cleaning up Labour's mess, not engaging in an all-out ideological crusade.

Fourth, use common-sense language. David Cameron loves the term common sense, arguing repeatedly for a "common-sense revolution" and "common-sense Conservatism". The deficit is compared to a household budget: a fallacy that would have failed him his economics exam at Oxford. But it strips the politics out of a deeply politically charged offensive, and relates it to the everyday experiences of voters.

Of course, these are just suggestions, and I don't want to steal Cameron's thunder. But there's no doubt that this government is delivering a masterclass in cynical – but deeply effective – political propaganda. Whether he writes it up, rightwingers the world over will be studying Cameronese for years. If they want to fight it, it's time opponents started doing the same.

• This article was commissioned after a suggestion made by maryellenwalton. If there's a subject you'd like to see covered on Comment is free, please visit our You tell us page

• Follow Comment is free on Twitter@commentisfree