The idea appears to be that gov't funds cannot be used to lobby for political or policy changes, so that, for example, funds given to Greenpeace would have to be spent on non-political activities. But the rule is so broadly written that it basically poisons any gov't-funded research; rather than simply regulating the use of funds, it would prevent a researcher from speaking out in favor or against policies based on their research. This probably isn't by design. Probably.
> rather than simply regulating the use of funds, it would prevent a researcher from speaking out in favor or against policies based on their research.
I'm not sure it does, the clause is about "allowable expenditure":
> “The following costs are not Eligible Expenditure:- Payments that support activity
intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, Government or political
parties, or attempting to influence the awarding or renewal of contracts and grants,
or attempting to influence legislative or regulatory action”
"The aim of the Cabinet Office edict was to stop NGOs from lobbying politicians and Whitehall departments using the government’s own funds. "
The idea is to stop organisations, specifically charities, from using their government grants to lobby on political issues (i.e grants should fund only the charitable activities of the organisation).
Unfortunately it seems the law may not be specific enough in it's focus.
Hardly surprising, where's the benefit in making a law so focused that it can't be perverted and used as a land grab for more power?
"Just because the law is worded that way, doesn't mean we'll abuse our power"... because history hasn't shown us a hundred times already that that's exactly what they do - and by virtue of the fact they've done it so many times, you can only conclude that that's exactly what they intend, despite what they tell you.
They use specific examples to get laws passed giving them control that encompasses far more than that which the law was "intended"... and I use the word "intended" to mean what they want you to think was intended. What is actually intended is exactly how the law is worded... if it weren't, it would not be worded that way.
It doesn't matter what "the idea" is or what "the aim" of the Cabinet Office is, it matters how the law is written. In a court of law, they don't say "Oh, this is not what was intended by this law", they say "the law is black and white, written right here for all to see. You broke the law, here's your sentence."
If true, this has to be the most asinine idea in government ever. If the government produces a report that says a department, program, or policy is ineffective, what better source of research to provide to policymakers?! Using government research against the government is gold!
Source: I'm a lobbyist. GAO, CRS, and CBO reports are absolutely gold mines when it comes to discussing the issues with harmful policies.
The thinking, such that it is, is broadly this: the government funds research, therefore it is in favor of the research, therefore it is a waste of such (scarce) funds having the recipients lobbying the said government in favor of the findings, given the government was in favor in the first place.
This is the best explanation I've come across.
Of course, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence will see that this is either incredibly stupid, or incredibly devious.
Given the trajectory of the current UK government (for example privatising the probation service whilst bragging that not only did it not have any evidence this such a plan was a good thing, and that it was not going to look, because sometimes trusting 'gut instinct' is a smart idea), this has all the hallmarks of shutting down dissenting voices, rather than trying to spend money wisely.
Goodbye, economics, political science, sociology, atmospheric science, civil engineering...the list goes on. Your insights were welcome in their day, but we must now bid farewell. Godspeed on your merry way.
Yet more leftist political spin from the Guardian hits the HN front page. For a bit of balance, here's the equivalent story from a rightwing (aka taxpayer) perspective:
That Telegraph article is so full of spin I'm surprised bits aren't flying off.
In one corner we have a Cambridge zoologist, the head of the Science Media Centre, policy and communications director at the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Sir Martin Rees the astronomer royal, and director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering. All either scientists or highly reputable scientific institutions.
In the other corner we have "a right of centre thinkank[sic]", the Cabinet Office minister, someone from the thinktank again, an MP, and "Gina Miller, the founder of the True and Fair Foundation"; the last time The Telegraph represented her in print was so libelous they were forced to retract some of it (http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/21277/dai...).
Finally there's this bit:
"That followed the death of Olive Cooke, 92, one of Britain's longest serving poppy sellers, who took her own life after receiving repeated requests for money from charities."
Wow, really? Let's click that link, read some more about this poor old lady who was badgered to death by charities:
"An inquest later found that she had taken her own life, disclosing that she suffered from depression and had breast cancer... The report makes clear that the charity tactics were not responsible for her death..."
I see. Didn't stop them from spinning an entire article out of that premise though, did it?
Thanks for posting this link. It has reinforced my conviction that 1) this really is a deliberate attack and 2) the Telegraph is basically a Tory mouthpiece. Oh, and I didn't downvote you, but I wouldn't be surprised if those downvotes came from people taking offense at the suggestion that only right-wingers pay taxes.
Suicide is complex and it's wrong for people who didn't know her to speculate on what caused her death by suicide.
But we should probably remember that her death has caused considerable changes in the way that charities are allowed to communicate with people who've donated to them in the past, with debate in parliament and extra guidance from ICO.
Inquests are definitely a sub-optimal way to get information about a person's last days.
You're absolutely welcome to present alternate substantive sources on the same topic. That's a great thing to do on HN. But please don't present them with ideological vitriol. When you do that you make thoughtful discussion much less likely, and that is a toxic effect here. Political flamewars, which is what we'll get, have no place on HN.
Although I dislike the tone of this the underlying intention is balanced - preventing use of tax-payer funds for lobbying or seeking contracts. They can still do those things using funds from other sources.
I disagree with it because in the case of health and scientific research (often funded by tax-payers) that often lead to conclusions that should properly influence policy-making, if the people most informed about that research are even partially hobbled from speaking as experts (due to actual or feared conflict with this rule) then the entire country is worse off, and the tax-payer funding may well have a lower cost/benefit ratio.
The way it is drafted throws a catch-all over areas that haven't been fully considered and as in many other cases the civil servants and politicians leave it to, and beyond, the last minute to make clarifications.
I think the two most important quotes from the guidance are:
Q3: Should the clause be included for all types of grant recipient – e.g. public
sector organisations and individuals?
A: Yes, the presumption is that this clause is always included. Grant recipients are
still free to engage in lobbying but should not fund this sort of activity from
government grants unless it is specifically part of the terms of the grant itself. Grant
recipients who wish to undertake activities expressly prohibited by this clause should
raise and use separate funds to do so.
Q4: What if an organisation receives 100% of its funding from government?
A: Where an organisation receives all of its funding from government it should, first,
consider whether it has power to engage in activities prohibited by this clause. If it
does, and the organisation wishes to undertake these activities, they should consider
alternative funding sources. In the very rare case where the organisation is unable to
raise funds from any other source (e.g. because it lacks powers to do so) Ministers
may consider on a case by case basis whether the clause should be omitted, or
qualified.
> activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, Government or political parties
From Stephen Pinker's "The Language Instinct"
>As you are reading these words, you are taking part in one of the wonders of the natural world. For you and I belong to a species with a remarkable ability: we can shape events in each other's brains with exquisite precision. ... That ability is language.
If we accept that Parliaments, Governments and Parties are made up of people; then taken together these two quotes imply that recipients of grants must also have a separate source of funding in order to say or write anything that could be heard or read by an MP or party activist. Regardless of the subject.
Alternatively, the clause would only be enforceable for communications that are directly addressed to MPs or party members. If you publish something openly, or to a subscription service, then, when challenged, you could simply say "You weren't meant to read that, it was aimed at the general public/academic community only".
Unfortunately, due to the poor wording, we'll have to wait for the courts to work it out.
This is the full text of the new requirement, for all recipients of government grants: “The following costs are not Eligible Expenditure:- Payments that support activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, Government or political parties, or attempting to influence the awarding or renewal of contracts and grants, or attempting to influence legislative or regulatory action.” Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12143479/Charities-... .
Sounds totally reasonable to me. You're free to lobby the government and run propaganda campaigns, but not with taxpayers' money that you're supposed to be using for research.
17 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 44.7 ms ] threadEdit: thanks for the clarification HN!
I'm not sure it does, the clause is about "allowable expenditure":
> “The following costs are not Eligible Expenditure:- Payments that support activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, Government or political parties, or attempting to influence the awarding or renewal of contracts and grants, or attempting to influence legislative or regulatory action”
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
"The aim of the Cabinet Office edict was to stop NGOs from lobbying politicians and Whitehall departments using the government’s own funds. "
The idea is to stop organisations, specifically charities, from using their government grants to lobby on political issues (i.e grants should fund only the charitable activities of the organisation).
Unfortunately it seems the law may not be specific enough in it's focus.
"Just because the law is worded that way, doesn't mean we'll abuse our power"... because history hasn't shown us a hundred times already that that's exactly what they do - and by virtue of the fact they've done it so many times, you can only conclude that that's exactly what they intend, despite what they tell you.
They use specific examples to get laws passed giving them control that encompasses far more than that which the law was "intended"... and I use the word "intended" to mean what they want you to think was intended. What is actually intended is exactly how the law is worded... if it weren't, it would not be worded that way.
It doesn't matter what "the idea" is or what "the aim" of the Cabinet Office is, it matters how the law is written. In a court of law, they don't say "Oh, this is not what was intended by this law", they say "the law is black and white, written right here for all to see. You broke the law, here's your sentence."
Source: I'm a lobbyist. GAO, CRS, and CBO reports are absolutely gold mines when it comes to discussing the issues with harmful policies.
This is the best explanation I've come across.
Of course, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence will see that this is either incredibly stupid, or incredibly devious.
Given the trajectory of the current UK government (for example privatising the probation service whilst bragging that not only did it not have any evidence this such a plan was a good thing, and that it was not going to look, because sometimes trusting 'gut instinct' is a smart idea), this has all the hallmarks of shutting down dissenting voices, rather than trying to spend money wisely.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12143479/Charities-...
In one corner we have a Cambridge zoologist, the head of the Science Media Centre, policy and communications director at the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, Sir Martin Rees the astronomer royal, and director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering. All either scientists or highly reputable scientific institutions.
In the other corner we have "a right of centre thinkank[sic]", the Cabinet Office minister, someone from the thinktank again, an MP, and "Gina Miller, the founder of the True and Fair Foundation"; the last time The Telegraph represented her in print was so libelous they were forced to retract some of it (http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/21277/dai...).
Finally there's this bit:
"That followed the death of Olive Cooke, 92, one of Britain's longest serving poppy sellers, who took her own life after receiving repeated requests for money from charities."
Wow, really? Let's click that link, read some more about this poor old lady who was badgered to death by charities:
"An inquest later found that she had taken her own life, disclosing that she suffered from depression and had breast cancer... The report makes clear that the charity tactics were not responsible for her death..."
I see. Didn't stop them from spinning an entire article out of that premise though, did it? Thanks for posting this link. It has reinforced my conviction that 1) this really is a deliberate attack and 2) the Telegraph is basically a Tory mouthpiece. Oh, and I didn't downvote you, but I wouldn't be surprised if those downvotes came from people taking offense at the suggestion that only right-wingers pay taxes.
But we should probably remember that her death has caused considerable changes in the way that charities are allowed to communicate with people who've donated to them in the past, with debate in parliament and extra guidance from ICO.
Inquests are definitely a sub-optimal way to get information about a person's last days.
I disagree with it because in the case of health and scientific research (often funded by tax-payers) that often lead to conclusions that should properly influence policy-making, if the people most informed about that research are even partially hobbled from speaking as experts (due to actual or feared conflict with this rule) then the entire country is worse off, and the tax-payer funding may well have a lower cost/benefit ratio.
The way it is drafted throws a catch-all over areas that haven't been fully considered and as in many other cases the civil servants and politicians leave it to, and beyond, the last minute to make clarifications.
I think the two most important quotes from the guidance are:
Q3: Should the clause be included for all types of grant recipient – e.g. public sector organisations and individuals?
A: Yes, the presumption is that this clause is always included. Grant recipients are still free to engage in lobbying but should not fund this sort of activity from government grants unless it is specifically part of the terms of the grant itself. Grant recipients who wish to undertake activities expressly prohibited by this clause should raise and use separate funds to do so.
Q4: What if an organisation receives 100% of its funding from government?
A: Where an organisation receives all of its funding from government it should, first, consider whether it has power to engage in activities prohibited by this clause. If it does, and the organisation wishes to undertake these activities, they should consider alternative funding sources. In the very rare case where the organisation is unable to raise funds from any other source (e.g. because it lacks powers to do so) Ministers may consider on a case by case basis whether the clause should be omitted, or qualified.
[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
> activity intended to influence or attempt to influence Parliament, Government or political parties
From Stephen Pinker's "The Language Instinct"
>As you are reading these words, you are taking part in one of the wonders of the natural world. For you and I belong to a species with a remarkable ability: we can shape events in each other's brains with exquisite precision. ... That ability is language.
If we accept that Parliaments, Governments and Parties are made up of people; then taken together these two quotes imply that recipients of grants must also have a separate source of funding in order to say or write anything that could be heard or read by an MP or party activist. Regardless of the subject.
Alternatively, the clause would only be enforceable for communications that are directly addressed to MPs or party members. If you publish something openly, or to a subscription service, then, when challenged, you could simply say "You weren't meant to read that, it was aimed at the general public/academic community only".
Unfortunately, due to the poor wording, we'll have to wait for the courts to work it out.
Sounds totally reasonable to me. You're free to lobby the government and run propaganda campaigns, but not with taxpayers' money that you're supposed to be using for research.