Skip to main content

"Front" lobbying organizations - SOS and the Countryside Alliance

Companies setting up "independent" lobbying organizations might be on the increase, I think. When it was proposed to limit displays of cigarettes in shops, a group called Save Our Shops lobbied MPs (source here):

Over the summer, MPs were inundated with postcards bearing the Save Our Shop campaign logo, urging them not to back the government's proposals, outlined last week by the Department of Health. The cards stated: 'As my local MP, I hope you will protect our independent local shops by opposing this proposal.'

More than 100 MPs signed an early-day motion in Parliament agreeing with the proposal that any plan to sell cigarettes under the counter should be firmly 'evidenced-based', a key message pushed by the Save Our Shop campaign.

But it has now emerged many MPs were unaware the campaign was the brainchild of the Tobacco Retailers' Association (TRA), an offshoot of the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association, which represents the interests of three tobacco companies: BAT, Gallaher and Imperial Tobacco.


Incidentally, SOS were clearly not well organized because very mixed messages were coming from shop keepers. Some insisted the move would have no effect on kids etc. buying fags, so why hide the fags? Pointless Nanny-State-ism. But others said it would severely damage trade - and threaten shops. So it would severely damage trade by...er.. not having any effect on sales. Hmm.

Another dubious lobbying organization is the Countryside Alliance, which presents itself as defending the interests of those living in the countryside, but seems to do little other than fight to protect fox hunting, which, ironically, polls indicate a majority of those living in the countryside want banned. The website says:

The Countryside Alliance works for everyone who loves the countryside and the rural way of life. Our vision is of a vital, working and thriving countryside for the benefit of the whole nation.

Here we have not a company, but wealthy people who, after a hard week in the boardroom, like to relax by chasing down and disembowelling small animals, putting up and funding a lobbying organization which presents itself as one thing (fights to protect the countryside) but is really another (lobbies to protect their nasty hobby).

I don't see the Countryside Alliance fighting for more rural public transport, or defending local post offices, or anything else that might really have an impact on the quality of life of those living in the countryside. Because the truth is most of the big contributors to the CA really don't give a fuck about ordinary people living in the countryside.

Interestingly, wiki notes that: According to disclosures in the UK Data Protection Register, the CA carries out research on the backgrounds of those it considers to be its opponents.

This might get me on their list.

Info (which seems reliable, though the source is partisan) on who funds and controls the CA here

Background information on the ban of hunting with dogs here.(The Independent).

Anyone aware of other examples of such "front" lobbying organizations?

Comments

Anonymous said…
What about groups funded by the government or EU to lobby the government or EU - self licking lollipops so to speak?
Anonymous said…
Let's go close to the edge...CORE (Comment on Reproductive Ethics) sounds like an independent think-tank from looking at its name. In reality it's a hard-line pro-life organization. (Cathlolic-style, not sure if that's written into its constitution though).
Anonymous said…
The US is crawling with them. There's the 'Tobacco Institute' for instance - which sounds like a think tank but isn't. There's an equivalent for the sugar industry, whose name escapes me. There's probably one or more for every industry in the US.
Chris Gale said…
The odious CA is partner in a convention called 'The Convention on Modern Liberty'. What utter garbage that somehow their fetish for torturing sentient creatures for kicks should be a 'civil liberties/human rights' issue!!!
Myself and colleagues who oppose bloodsports have posted about it on the website of this convention.. see
http://www.modernliberty.net/2008/tuc-and-countryside-alliance
Kasen said…
Okay. I see why you all agree that God makes no sense. And obviously you rely on science in your arguments on the AGAINST team. So I will use science to explain why God DOES exist. First of all, matter cannot create itself, so that gets rid of the big bang theory. No matter what scientists try, no matter what chemicals they use, nothing on Earth can give an object more mass, or take it away. So how did the world grow from the big bang?
Second, if the theory of evolution were true, how come we as humans haven't changed since we grew up from gorillas or whatever? It wouldn't just stop. It would be a continual process. Third, the order of the seasons, the way the planets don't just rotate randomly, and the way there is a specific order, EVERYWHERE we look, implies that it was all created by a being of intelligence. And if you look back in history, some of the most logical minds believed in God. A lot of them didn't start out that way. So they had to have found some proof that He exists, right? If God doesn't exist, why is a type of molecule in our body shaped like a cross? If God didn't exist, where did women come from? Because God made woman out of Adams rib. God made ADAM! So how do we even exist? How is there air for us to breathe? If there is no God, how is it possible that we ARE? Read the Bible. Read Genesis, and then Revelations. They both add up to how the world is today. You'll see.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist