By Jordan Fermanis
By now we’ve all seen the video that recently resurfaced to haunt David Cameron. Speaking to the party conference prior to his election victory in 2010, Cameron bluntly lays out the dubious forms political lobbying takes in Britain. He takes aim at the “the quiet word in the ear” and the “ex-ministers for hire” responsible for the “far too cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money”. The speech shows off Cameron’s penchant for prescience as the former prime minister described lobbying as the “next big scandal waiting to happen” in British politics.
A decade after making his speech promising to tackle lobbying, Cameron now finds himself at the centre of a cronyism scandal unravelling at Westminster. After his ignominious exit from politics following the Brexit referendum in 2016, Cameron has taken on a number of advisory roles in the world of business. He is chairman of the artificial intelligence company Afiniti and an adviser to fintech company Fiserv, but it is his role for the now insolvent finance company Greensill Capital that has dragged him into a political maelstrom.
When the Greensill story first broke Cameron was nowhere to be seen. He may have retreated to the exclusive environs of Chipping Norton to escape the media furore that was erupting in London. He made no public comment and tactically avoided calls from journalists - probably in the hope that the story would blow over.
But Cameron has proved that his media and PR skill may even rival his political instincts. Not only did the Greensill story not blow over, it grew like a cancerous sore on a government that was basking in the glowing praise it was receiving from the covid-19 vaccine rollout.
Greensill Capital collapsed into insolvency earlier this year, but Cameron’s involvement in the controversy mainly concerns his unsuccessful attempt to secure a covid-related government loan for the company as an adviser. It seems Cameron’s business acumen is no better than his media or political nous.
As the Greensill scandal unfolded more details of Cameron’s role as company adviser began to appear. A photo emerged of Cameron sipping tea with the Australian founder of Greensill Capital, Lex Greensill, as the pair attempted to woo Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman at a desert camp in Saudi Arabia. This is even after the crown prince, known as MBS, is alleged to be implicated in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi embassy in Istanbul in 2018.
But it was Cameron’s lobbying to former colleagues in the Conservative Party that raised alarms. A text message exchange between Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak and his former boss was leaked to the media, in which Cameron asks Sunak for Greensill Capital to be included in the government loan scheme. Reading the text messages, you are left with the impression that Sunak felt slightly compelled to act for Cameron, promising to revisit Greensill’s failed bid in language that feels warmer than the rigid formal channels open to other lobbyists. Then came the revelation that Cameron had also met with Health Secretary Matt Hancock and Lex Greensill for a “private drink” to discuss a new payment scheme for NHS staff called Earnd that was backed by Greensill Capital.
It should be said that Cameron is not alone when it comes to former British politicians working as advisers in business. Former Home Secretary Amber Rudd is on the advisory council to British cybersecurity company Darktrace and former Chancellor George Osborne is now working at Robey Warshaw after a stint at BlackRock. While former Deputy Prime Minister and Lib Dems leader Nick Clegg retains a lucrative role as Vice President for Global Affairs & Communications at Facebook.
So why has the Greensill affair drawn so much scrutiny over the revolving door between government and business? The main reason seems to be that Cameron did not disclose his private communications with Sunak and other government ministers formally. He sent texts to Sunak and met up with Hancock for a drink rather than sticking to the formal lobbying channels he helped establish as prime minister.
This all looks rather innocuous in isolation - a now private citizen using political sway and influence to cajole government ministers for favourable treatment. As mentioned in a previous Politics Relaxed Podcast article, there isn’t any suggestion that Cameron broke any rules or acted illegally, even if he may have belatedly lived up to the moniker of ‘Dodgy Dave’ bestowed upon him by the Labour Party. Beyond whether or not Cameron broke any rules, there is also the significant fact that his lobbying efforts were ultimately unsuccessful.
However the Greensill affair still sheds light on the nebulous ways lobbying operates in British politics. It reaffirms the public’s suspicion that politics is a game played by elites behind closed doors, lacking in accountability and integrity. Even Prime Minister Boris Johnson is sufficiently concerned about the Greensill affair to order an independent investigation, although true to form, the findings of the internal investigation are not binding and will largely be left unknown.
In any case, whether or not Cameron acted with impropriety isn’t the key question. According to the UK parliament website, anyone is permitted to lobby an MP or member of the House of Lords. The website recommends lobbying via channels open to all citizens such as sending letters and emails, writing petitions and inviting MPs to events. But what is conspicuously missing from the advice is any indication that lobbyists may use private communication channels to contact politicians. Cameron argues that he broke no rules, yet are there many other advisers out there who would have the same level of access he does? Even despite the rule banning former ministers from engaging in lobbying for two years after leaving office, has Cameron’s political contact book really grown any smaller in that time?
The reason the Cameron affair causes such consternation is because it stinks of privilege. Lobbying occurs at all levels of politics in various forms. Groups may petition politicians to rethink a proposed building development or put an issue like mental health on the political agenda, yet these efforts feel miles away from the kind of opportunistic lobbying Cameron engaged in. In this case, Cameron used his close contacts inside the Conservative Party to try and obtain preferential treatment, even once his initial efforts were knocked back. The idea that a former prime minister after leaving office could then use his political connections to advance his business dealings smacks of entitlement and privilege.
But it also raises another issue. The reason Greensill appointed Cameron in the first place was because of his close connections to the government as a former prime minister. Cameron is a career politician, who only ever held one position outside of politics, ironically as a PR executive. Greensill identified Cameron as a useful insider with knowledge that money and experience can’t buy.
This all begs the question, does political lobbying in Britain need to be reformed? After arriving in Britain I was struck by the propinquity between politics and business in this country. According to parliament statistics, 180 MPs have additional jobs outside of parliament, something that is totally banned in other countries. Second jobs for MPs is something that has a long history in Britain, yet it seems an anachronism that regards the work of MPs in parliament as the same as any other job. How can we expect politicians to cease the kind of lobbying conducted by Cameron if we’ve given them the opportunity to build a business career while sitting in parliament?
By comparison in the US, former officials are required to keep a register of business interests for their entire lives, not just the mandatory two years required in Britain. They are also excluded from lobbying the government on specific policy issues they themselves have directly worked on while in office.
Lobbying scandals have an extensive history on all sides of politics in Britain. Cameron was embroiled in another controversy in March 2012, when Conservative Party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas resigned after he secretly filmed footage that apparently showed him offering access to Cameron for a donation of £250,000 a year. In 1998, political lobbyist Derek Draper was caught by a journalist at The Observer boasting about his intimate links to Downing Street officials. In another scandal during the Blair years dubbed “lobbygate” Formula One was exempt from a new ban on tobacco advertising months after the head of the sport’s governing body Bernie Ecclestone donated £1m to the Labour Party.
Two mechanisms already exist to prevent cronyism in British politics. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) which was established by Cameron himself and Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists (ORCL) which oversees multi-client lobbyists. If the Cameron affair reveals nothing else, it is that greater transparency is needed to strengthen both controls.
The Greensill scandal reminds us that business and politics are intimately connected. It bares emphasising that this isn’t some kind of conspiracy theory aimed at neoliberalism, but a self-evident proposition. The ability to perform the art of political persuasion is regarded as a valuable asset by business.
Just as the Greensill scandal looked to be dying down, another case of suspected lobbying and cronyism reared its head. This time Boris Johnson was forced to claim he did nothing wrong by promising he would “fix” the tax rules for billionaire vacuum industrialist James Dyson in March 2020. It is alleged that Dyson sought assurances from the British government that its staff would not have to pay extra taxes to work on a project to secure more ventilators for NHS hospitals as the coronavirus pandemic swept across the globe.
Labour leader Keir Starmer has called the new revelations the “return of the Tory sleaze” alluding to the cash-for-questions affair and sex scandals that plagued former Tory Prime Minister John Major in the 1990s.
Johnson will most probably not be found to have used the power of his office to personally hand public money to a billionaire in the form of tax breaks, or if he did, he will not have broken any official rules. But if this string of scandals reveals anything, it is that taxation might not be the only area that requires fixing.
Comments