It’s time to stop lobbyists

Lobbyists tell you lobbying is in the public interest - then spend all their time trying to hide it. If something is being argued as in the public interest then it should be fine for it to be in the public domain. No more secrets.

Sometimes Common Weal turns up a story or a fact that surprises even us. We knew that the property developers were being fundamentally dishonest in their seeming never-ending list of reasons why they won't build houses, but we didn't realise how dishonest.

It all points back to one thing; the corporate influence in politics is harming every citizen in this country and its most potent form is lobbying. It is time we did something about this before it is too late – and it isn't that hard for a courageous politician to do.

First, I want to show you a few things. This is what an ordinary person would read about housebuilding. It isn't happening because of rent control, rent controls again, more rent controls, rent controls one more time, building safety levy, green targets and lack of bricks. The first six have been in the Herald in the last few weeks, the last one I just made up since that's what they're doing.

Now let's have a quick glance. How many of the houses that the developers can't afford to build are for rental? The answer is eight per cent. So why can't they at least build the other 92 per cent? But since that only makes up two per cent of the private rental market, is it that big a deal? And of that eight per cent, how many were actually 'homes' and how many were lucrative student flats?

And what were these ominous rent controls that were destroying our way of life in Britain? They consisted of letting landlords increase rents by above inflation every year, but not more than six per cent in one year in total. Rents can stretch out ahead of inflation every year forever – yet this is causing a collapse in housebuilding? Honestly?

What about the building safety levy? This is a small levy to be charged to builders based on the size of the house. Why? Because someone has to pay for all the unsafe fire hazard cladding developers have been putting on houses as cost cutting exercise. Who do they think should pay? Well, the NHS or someone obviously.

And what about the environmental regulations? These are woefully lax and represent a gift to developers who should be building passive houses. So who should be paying if not the developers? See above.

Housing developers think they should be able to charge vulnerable tenants whatever they want, build houses as environmentally irresponsibly as they want, lob death-trap cladding on these houses and pocket the profits that result – and that the cost of all of this should be born by someone else.

So are these poor developers struggling? Like fuck they are. The average amount that Taylor Wimpey paid their shareholders in dividends was £37,000 per house. Taken out in profit. And what are they building? The average new build now costs over £424,049, a 24.6 per cent increase since last year.

What is the average cost of a house generally? It is £291,000. The developers are building houses which are £133,000 more than existing houses. As a reminder, about a quarter of that goes straight to their shareholders in profit.

What about you? Well, as Craig points out in his analysis, if you buy a new build house, you will have paid an average of £67,000 more than you had to by the time you pay off your mortgage. That's what your 'friends' in the property development industry are doing to you – taking £70k out of your lifetime wealth and asking you to say thanks for it.

Is that the impression you get from the media? Does the story come across as 'evil property developers demand right to rip you off more and more forever'? Or does it feel more like 'poor, struggling property developers just want your kids to have a house and the evil government is thwarting them at every turn'? Because the former is true and the latter is a lie.

I walk you through this mainly to explain one point. Why is the property sector so concerned about the hearts and minds of the public? Do they expect you all to turn out in next year's election and, as one, put the Scottish Government in its place over rent controls? Obviously not because rent controls are wildly popular with the public (about three out of four in the public support them).

Nope, it has nothing to do with that. It is all about scaring government ministers. I spent much of my career as a political lobbyist and the first thing you have to understand is that at no point did I ever give a flying monkeys about what you all thought. I can't think of a single issue I have lobbied on over my career which was the kind of issue that would be likely to influence your vote.

Even the biggest things I lobbied on (big ticket items like university tuition fees and their replacement) were not election-deciders for the vast majority of people. Nope, the reason lobbyists place stories like this is to con politicians into thinking you care. I never cared what you thought; I did care about what the politicians thought you thought.

“Lobbyists tell you they are there to aid democracy but that’s garbage; they’re there to make wealthy people wealthier”

I never produced an economic impact assessment because I believed them, and I can tell you that the economic consultants who write them don't believe them either. They were just 'scare tactics' or 'mood music'. None of it was taken seriously on our side. Likewise artists impressions. This is the only growth industry in the Glasgow area. If you're not doing an artists impression of a new student flat development then you're probably unemployed...

I stared at one the other day, my brain screaming that something was wrong. I then realised what it was – the trees in front of the new student accommodation were all casting a shadow but they should all themselves have been in the shadow of the giant building being proposed which was casting no shadow at all. It's mad.

Yet the purpose isn't to show you what the result will look like (I am obsessed with these drawings because I've been looking at them for about five years and I've not yet found a single person from Glasgow in any of these pictures who is overweight – magic transparent buildings and universal Ozempic all in one...).

It's another trick. If you could see the giant shadow that would be permanently cast over Suchiehall Street you'd be worried. So just make it go away. Why? Because when a politician looks at it it will look like something you aren't going to object to. That's all these are for – magically removing possible objections by drawing pictures with the objectionable thing missing.

So why do they really do all these things? Because they exist in a perpetual privileged position with government ministers. The people who want to do damage get to meet Cabinet Secretaries and senior civil servants dozens and dozens of times while the people trying to stop damage get a 'hello now fuck off' meeting if they are very, very lucky.

Why? Because they don't have the budget to get pictures done to show you what an oppressive hellhole a city will become, or the media connections to get a journalist to write a truthful article, or the ability to commission a fake economic impact assessment.

We lobbyists do all of this just to soften the ground for secret conversations that we go to great lengths to make sure you never know about. The cost of this is significant in social terms but not in business terms. I might blow £20k on softening up exercises like these and not thing twice about it. I just need to spout this crap out faster than you can rebut it and I've won.

Then when I get into the meeting I'll effectively offer the officials or the politicians the hint that they might get a lucrative board position with my firm if they don't ask questions and hand over the permissions. Or I might threaten them with a concerted campaign against them in their constituency. Most likely I'll just confused them with statistics and assume they'll be impressed.

And they will. Politicians are like power-groupies. They tend to have come from a place of no real power themselves and power is the currency of their entire trade. It is kind of inevitable that they will go weak at the knees in the face of powerful people, in the way that football fans who otherwise have high IQs will start simpering like puppy dogs if they meet their club's all-time-record goal scorer

(By the way, I'm just sticking to lobbying here and not even touching the plethora of other ways corporates get what they want – revolving doors, commercial confidentiality clauses, outsourced policy development they can influence outside democracy altogether and that sort of thing.)

It is an insidious, poisonous system which has done more than most things to break our democracy. And – get this – the lobbyists also lobby for lobbying. It is the number one rule that it doesn't matter what you lobby for, you must join with all other lobbyists to claim that lobbying is an important part of democracy.

This is false. What is important is that different arguments can be heard by politicians and sets of information should be presented for and against cases. This an important factor in forming policy and really is necessary.

What is not true is that this stuff all has to happen in secret, that the matters discussed are crucial for public policy but must be redacted nonetheless, and that you aren't allowed any disclosure of what has been spent in pursuit of bending policy-makers to commercial will.

So here are three simple regulatory steps that I would now put in place tomorrow if I could. This would cause howls of outrage from lobbyists – and the public wouldn't care one jot.

Firstly, every meeting should be recorded for public viewing. Have committee hearings or public evidence sessions. It is fundamentally wrong that something is treated like it is in the public interest but that the public can't know whether it’s really in their interests. In all my time lobbying I can promise there was never a single thing I wouldn't have said on camera. Why the secrecy? How is it justified? End it.

Secondly, anyone who wants to influence government should disclose everything they did to influence public policy and how much it cost. This might sound tricky but it isn't; if a lobbyist doesn't know the budget for their campaign they aren't much of a lobbyist. Just disclose it.

Third, there should be no commercial confidentially in government. None. It should come to an end. The only time it is appropriate is during tendering so one tender doesn't know what another is bidding. But once contracts are issued, all public money should be spent transparently. No-one should get privileged access to push commercial interests if they can't disclose those interests.

This is supposed to be a democracy. Lobbyists tell you they are there to aid democracy but that's garbage; they're there to make wealthy people wealthier. That's it. They distort facts willy-nilly and campaigners can't even fact check them because it's all secret. They can tell outright lies and the chances are no-one will know. They have too much power. Full stop.

Lobbying is a rot at the heart of our democracy and it is time we did something about it.