UKC

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/campaigns

In reply to Timmd:

Now, you might have to explain that. Y'see, most people think it's right and proper that lobbying firms should have to announce which of our elected representatives they're lobbying and/or paying to advance parliamentary questions and/or their cause.

Which amendments are it exactly you're in favour of?

jcm

In reply to Timmd:

I couldnt help but snigger at the "Stand up to Trump" campaign. I prefer to sit when I pass gas.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The problem with the current lobbying legislation, as I understand it, is that it fails properly to discriminate between organisations with legitimate reasons for seeking to meet Government ministers (for example, charities which might want to express a view on a particular piece of legislation - Shelter, wanting to talk about the bedroom tax, for example), and organisations which have a more corporate agenda which may not be in the wider public interest.

But I'll happily admit I haven't really been keeping up and may be completely wrong.

I do like the typo in one of the comments "Please help to keep demon acy alive". I suppose demons must have names ...

In reply to tony:


So is it your belief that charities lobbying is always "legitimate" and that corporate lobbying is not?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I knew that would be picked up. No, that's not what I believe. I'm sure there is corporate lobbying that goes on that is worthwhile and necessary, and I'm sure there is charity lobbying which is a waste of time, money, effort and not in the public interest.

Sorry to disappoint.

In reply to tony:


I'm not disappointed, I'm relieved. Actually there is an argument that the legislation is as much or more about trying to clamp down on politically motivated lobbying by charities dependent on government finance and run by the labour "charitocracy" as on that done by by evil corporations.

So you'd better get signing!

In reply to Postmanpat:

When you say 'clamp down on', do you mean 'set up a register to render transparent', or is there some more supposedly sinister aspect of this legislation?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


They were going to cap spending as well, so a bit of both I guess. Like so much legislation it appears to a badly drafted pig's ear.
Whether it is "sinister" depends on what you think lobbying nd lobbyists should be allowed to do I should think.

What do you reckon?