If you take money from Big Tobacco then you’re beholden to them

But if you take money from the EU then you’re not…..

The European Union is paying green campaign groups millions of pounds effectively to lobby itself.

Activists are being given the grants from a European Commission environmental fund, which enables a network of green groups to influence and promote EU policy.

The practice has been branded a “cash carousel” by critics, who have called for the special fund — called Life+ — to be scrapped.

In total, the fund has handed out more than £90 million to green groups in the past 15 years, according to the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which has analysed its spending.

Apparently so anyway.

11 comments on “If you take money from Big Tobacco then you’re beholden to them

  1. You support their agenda = you can do no wrong
    You oppose their agenda = you must be destroyed.

    Consistency or logic has got nothing to do with it. The problem is that virtually all our ruling class come from the 68 generation and the stain of Stalinism never leaves the soul. The party collapsed, but the mentality remained.

  2. SMFS

    Agreed. But to them it’s just common sense. You cannot possibly approve of the activities of corporates, oh no. So, if you state an opinion that isn’t wholly critical of them, then you must, simply must, be in their pay. By contrast Unite, PCS, the Guardian and of course the sainted Jospeh Rowntree Foundation are fonts of goodness and right thinking. So one works for them because one believes in the right things; no conflict of interest is possible, let alone demonstrated.

    Ergo, all corporate lobbying must be accounted for, down to the penny, and then banned. By contrast, just ask, oh I don’t know, let’s say a blogger, to account for the sums he gets from said Jospeph Rowntree Foundation and he is entitled, dammit required, to express outrage and scream about the “Gagging Bill”.

  3. The EU was going to subsidise ecofascist charities by 50% of their budget but with the exception of Greenpeace who claim not to take state money, they all protested that there was no way they could raise half of their money voluntarily, so the EU upped it to 70%. Plus what our own government & quangos give them.

    Virtually all ecofascist movements are government funded propaganda organisations existing to advertise the “need” for more government controls and taxes.

  4. It depends who you see as “running” who. It can also be seen as the Turd Sector having captured government, which historically I think is a better fit. In this scenario, government is merely a mechanism which special interests use to impose their will on the rest of the populace.

    But really it’s more of a circular thing. The same class of people circulating and networking between the charidees, government, corporate sector, etc. The political economy is not a linear system. When Dave stands at the NSPCC headquarters announcing his censorship regime, who is running who, or do they all just have a common purpose?

  5. Ian B: who you see as “running” who

    And

    who is running who

    once might have been an oversight but not twice…

  6. @ SMFS
    ” The problem is that virtually all our ruling class come from the 68 generation”
    Do you mean born in 1968 or were students in 1968? I was a post-grad in 1968 but a supporter of Dubcek rather than Stalin, as was practically everyone else I knew: my college only had one Communist which meant that “The Daily Worker” was the only paper free to read in the JCR when I finished breakfast (and had good, relatively honest, reports on Vietnam, so I wasn’t surprised, just saddened, when I read about Pol Pot).
    The current UK political elite (cameroons, millionairebands, Ballses) was mostly born in the late-60s and cannot remember Stalin, and barely even Brezhnev. Only two of the twenty-eight EU Commissioners are of an age to have been students in 1968.
    So: NO, virtually all our ruling class *does not* come from the “1968 generation” and it is not the fault of that/my generation. I thought a lot of my contemporaries were naive but even the would-be politicos (who disliked me because I knew too much about politics) were not Stalinist.

  7. Yes, we’re increasingly transitioning into rule not by the Boomers of ’68, but the following generation (Generation X?). Class of ’68 is a useful handle though; our current society at the political level has been crafted by that cohort who, in the 60s were drawn to Communism and New Left Communist Lite, and transitioned into identity/pressure group politics, largely abandoning the actual marxist communism in the process (as the paleoconservative Paul Gottfried has described rather well in The Strange Death Of Marxism).

  8. @john77
    One thinks you should acquaint yourself with the phrase “the Long March through the institutions” These were the ones born on the march.
    And WTF was your uni? I was a ’68 veteran. Paris T-shirt to prove it but only there for the crumpet. Student bars fairly seethed with spotty trots in those days. Them that weren’t Maoists. I’ve watched a couple climbing the greasy pole since & turning paler & paler pink in the process. Cutting them in half to see what’s written down the middle might be revealing.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.