K Street-on-Thames

Britain discovers that its lobbyists are just as sleazy as America's.

BY ALEX MASSIE | DECEMBER 7, 2011

LONDON — David Cameron's government has not enjoyed much success in predicting the future of the British economy, but the prime minister's political foresight has not entirely deserted him: Last year, following the News of the World hacking controversy, he forecast that lobbying was "the next big scandal waiting to happen." Lobbying, he said, has "tainted our politics for too long" and become "an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money." Greater transparency, said the prime minister, was needed to rid British public life of the suspicion that a chosen few were able to purchase power and influence.

That chicken came back to roost this week, as newspaper reports revealed the extent to which lobbying companies with close ties to Cameron's government boast of their ability to influence British government policy. If British voters could ever comfort themselves with the thought that the level of influence peddling regularly observed in Washington was unheard of in Whitehall, those days are over.

An investigation published by the Independent created a fake Uzbek business conglomerate called the "Asimov Group" that asked some of the most prominent British public affairs companies to help improve Uzbekistan's dismal image. (The story was a British update of a similar sting pulled off by investigative journalist Ken Silverstein in Washington in 2008.) Of the ten companies approached by the Independent reporters, five expressed an interest in representing the Asimov Group in London. 

Of these five, Bell Pottinger -- a public affairs firm founded by Tim Bell, formerly Margaret Thatcher's media advisor during her time in Downing Street -- was the most enthusiastic. The company's managing director, Tim Collins, himself a former Conservative member of parliament, boasted that Bell Pottinger had "all sorts of dark arts," some of which could not be put in a written presentation because "it's embarrassing if it gets out." 

Secret recordings of the meetings between Bell Pottinger and the Asimov Group showed Collins cheerfully admitting that "a number of [our client] governments have had serious reputational issues." 

Bell Pottinger, however, would be happy to represent the Uzbeks -- one of the most repressive regimes in the world, whose state-run textile industry makes great use of forced child labor -- provided the Uzbek government was willing to change its ways. Collins told his would-be clients, "[That] justifies why a PR company is representing a country which previously people shouldn't have been talking to. Now it actually wants to change it is fully acceptable."

According to another Bell Pottinger excutive, "As long as you can see that each year is a little better than before, that's fine." The company cited work it had previously done for the government of Belarus, another totalitarian country in dire need of better publicity in the West but one unwilling to make the kind of reforms that might win such goodwill honestly. "In our work for Belarus, nobody knows who paid us," said the executive. In other words, in the murky lobbying world, transparency is a fine, but not necessary, thing.

BEN STANSALL/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: EUROPE
 

Alex Massie writes for The Spectator.

 

SAMIAALEEM83

6:12 AM ET

December 8, 2011

why K street ?

Why you are talking about K street ?
Reaction in Israel has varied to President Barack Obama's endorsement of the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded coolly, saying that to use those borders as a basis for talks would leave Israel "indefensible" because major population centers are beyond those lines.

Not everyone in Israel agrees.

Tzipi Livni, an opposition leader and former foreign minister who leads the Kadima movement, criticized Netanyahu's resistance to Obama's vision for peace talks.

An American president that supports a two-state solution represents the Israeli interest and is not anti-Israeli," Livni said. "President Obama's call to start negotiations represents Israel's interests."

In addition to saying "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines," Obama said peace talks could include "mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula in the 1967 war.

"The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine," Obama said in the concluding section of his 45-minute address that looked at political and social change sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa.

Other political figures In Israel responded along predictable partisan lines.

The outspoken deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset, or parliament, and Likud party member Danny Danon excoriated Obama for proposing borders along 1967 lines. He said in a statement that Obama had "adopted Yasser Arafat's infamous 'Stages Plan' and the hope to eventually remove the state of Israel from the map."

The Stages Plan refers to a Palestine Liberation Organization political document calling for a binational state that many in Israel believed was a ploy for staging further attacks against Israeli targets.

Einat Wilf, a member of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs Committee, sounded a far more conciliatory tone, however.

The Independence Party member said Obama's speech confirmed the principle "that Israel needs to be recognized by the Palestinians as the homeland of the Jewish people."

She also said it reaffirmed that the only way to achieve a Palestinian state is through direct negotiations with Israel, and she said it's particularly important that Obama mentioned that the Palestinians walked away from negotiations.

Opinions were varied in Israel's freewheeling media as well.

An editorial in the Jerusalem Post took note of Obama's reference to sensitive issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, writing "disturbingly, he did not specify that the Palestinian refugee problem must be solved within a new 'Palestine,' not in Israel."

Columnists Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer, writing in the pages of the mass circulation daily Yedioth Aronoth, argued that the focus on 1967 border lines was a "distraction."

An American president that supports a two-state solution represents the Israeli interest and is not anti-Israeli," Livni said. "President Obama's call to start negotiations represents Israel's interests."

In addition to saying "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines," Obama said peace talks could include "mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula in the 1967 war.

"The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine," Obama said in the concluding section of his 45-minute address that looked at political and social change sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa.

Other political figures In Israel responded along predictable partisan lines.

The outspoken deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset, or parliament, and Likud party member Danny Danon excoriated Obama for proposing borders along 1967 lines. He said in a statement that Obama had "adopted Yasser Arafat's infamous 'Stages Plan' and the hope to eventually remove the state of Israel from the map."

The Stages Plan refers to a Palestine Liberation Organization political document calling for a binational state that many in Israel believed was a ploy for staging further attacks against Israeli targets.

Einat Wilf, a member of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs Committee, sounded a far more conciliatory tone, however.

The Independence Party member said Obama's speech confirmed the principle "that Israel needs to be recognized by the Palestinians as the homeland of the Jewish people."

She also said it reaffirmed that the only way to achieve a Palestinian state is through direct negotiations with Israel, and she said it's particularly important that Obama mentioned that the Palestinians walked away from negotiations.

Opinions were varied in Israel's freewheeling media as well.

An editorial in the Jerusalem Post took note of Obama's reference to sensitive issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, writing "disturbingly, he did not specify that the Palestinian refugee problem must be solved within a new 'Palestine,' not in Israel."

Columnists Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer, writing in the pages of the mass circulation daily Yedioth Aronoth, argued that the focus on 1967 border lines was a "distraction."
An American president that supports a two-state solution represents the Israeli interest and is not anti-Israeli," Livni said. "President Obama's call to start negotiations represents Israel's interests."

In addition to saying "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines," Obama said peace talks could include "mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."

Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula in the 1967 war.

"The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine," Obama said in the concluding section of his 45-minute address that looked at political and social change sweeping across the Middle East and North Africa.

Other political figures In Israel responded along predictable partisan lines.

The outspoken deputy speaker of the Israeli Knesset, or parliament, and Likud party member Danny Danon excoriated Obama for proposing borders along 1967 lines. He said in a statement that Obama had "adopted Yasser Arafat's infamous 'Stages Plan' and the hope to eventually remove the state of Israel from the map."

The Stages Plan refers to a Palestine Liberation Organization political document calling for a binational state that many in Israel believed was a ploy for staging further attacks against Israeli targets.

Einat Wilf, a member of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs Committee, sounded a far more conciliatory tone, however.

The Independence Party member said Obama's speech confirmed the principle "that Israel needs to be recognized by the Palestinians as the homeland of the Jewish people."

She also said it reaffirmed that the only way to achieve a Palestinian state is through direct negotiations with Israel, and she said it's particularly important that Obama mentioned that the Palestinians walked away from negotiations.

Opinions were varied in Israel's freewheeling media as well.

An editorial in the Jerusalem Post took note of Obama's reference to sensitive issue of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, writing "disturbingly, he did not specify that the Palestinian refugee problem must be solved within a new 'Palestine,' not in Israel."

Columnists Nahum Barnea and Shimon Shiffer, writing in the pages of the mass circulation daily Yedioth Aronoth, argued that the focus on 1967 border lines was a "distraction."

Thanks

Admin of agenda software

 

DELPI99

4:34 PM ET

December 9, 2011

I am Greast

While all politicians have big egos, Sarkozy's need for attention is often jouvenile. The French who consider Americans put his foot in his mouth and be arrogant by making disparaging comments about other foreign leaders (such as his comments about PM Cameron or PM Netanyahu) and turn policy disagreements into personal conflicts. While this may play well with the French public, it makes him much less of a serious effective leader on the world's stage. This diminishes whatever influence France still have This is not a film about Sarkozy being president, but much more about the campaign against others being president. For this reason there is no Carla Bruni, she arrived after. They aren't attempting to patronize Sarkozy, around the contrary they're actually mocking him in some manner. If you can't stand him you would probably enjoy watching this movie.

 

ENGLISH BOB

4:06 PM ET

December 8, 2011

We were never under any illusions

Pictured: A guy who counts bankers amongst his biggest donors and has put back banking reforms until after 2018... presumably in the hope that we've forgotten it all by then.

 

COWBOY69

9:48 PM ET

January 4, 2012

 

DOMINOES

10:03 AM ET

January 5, 2012

birds of a feather

This is not shocking news by any means...this is what happens when there is so much money involved in the industry. People will do what ever it takes to get the money and power that comes with it. Me for one, I'll just stay out of this realm and work on my apartmentsaustin. Thanks FP.