George Monbiot on funding for campaigns

As usual, the left and centre (myself included) are beating ourselves up about where we went wrong. There are plenty of answers, but one of them is that we have simply been outspent. Not by a little, but by orders of magnitude. A few billion dollars spent on persuasion buys you all the politics you want. Genuine campaigners, working in their free time, simply cannot match a professional network staffed by thousands of well-paid, unscrupulous people.

What is Greenpeace’s budget again?

24 thoughts on “George Monbiot on funding for campaigns”

  1. If he is talking about the US election or Brexit, he is lying. His side massively outspent their opponent.

    Projection, always.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    What Rob said. Obama was outspent by everyone but he won because of his volunteers. Trump spent little but his volunteers were more passionate than Clinton’s. Even W probably spent less than Kerry.

    And the spending on Brexit was grossly one sided.

    As will be the spending on the Italian campaign and the French election. Let’s hope the rule holds a bit longer.

  3. George again,

    Trump’s climate denial is just one of the forces that point towards war

    of course it does ! though I’m sure Brexit will be in there somewhere.

  4. The guy lives in a parallel universe. Comes from only associating with like-minded wan*ers.

    Had a dinner the other night with old business colleagues all somewhere on the leftie spectrum. Me the only Brit and they know I favour Brexit and wondered about my attitude to Trump. Out came all the Misog/racist/homophobe. Had them rowing back in no time. No facts, they read only MSM.

    The Cliton (sic) Foundation caused comments like ‘Hmm, yes, maybe that needs looking at…’ Didn’t know that Bill Clit has a problem with women, thought it was far less of a question than Trump…

    They still don’t get it. They cannot understand that there are people out there who have thought about fracking, brexit, AGW, third wave feminism, Trump and the Clit, etc more than they have and have reached far more independent (and very different conclusions).

    Because I am not stupid (depends who you talk to, of course) and am manifestly a ‘good guy’, it causes head explosions and/or attempts to accomodate my ideas. Like the Moonbat, they literally never come into contact with anybody who does not ‘profess’ the same ideas.

  5. The guy lives in a parallel universe. Comes from only associating with like-minded wan*ers.

    Had a dinner the other night with old business colleagues all somewhere on the leftie spectrum. Me, the only Brit, and they know I favour Brexit and wondered about my attitude to Trump.

    Out came all the Misog/racist/homophobe. Had them rowing back in no time. No facts, they read only MSM.

    The Cliton (sic) Foundation caused comments like ‘Hmm, yes, maybe that needs looking at…’ ‘Didn’t know that Bill Clit has a problem with women’, thought it was far less of a question than Trump…

    They still don’t get it. They cannot understand that there are people out there who have thought about fracking, brexit, AGW, third wave feminism, ISIS, Obamacare, Trump and the Clit, etc more than they have and have reached very different conclusions.

    Because I am not stupid (depends who you talk to, of course) and am manifestly a ‘good guy’, it causes head explosions and/or attempts to accomodate my ideas. Like the Moonbat, they literally never come into contact with anybody who does not ‘profess’ the same ideas.

  6. So where are these highly funded professional campaigning organisations on the Right then? I see are lots of Leftist fake charities, often funded by the State, and using that money to lobby the State to be even more controlling than it is now. I see the BBC, funded by forcing people to pay their fees by legal dictat, constantly pushing Leftist themes. I don’t see the State giving money to any organisations dedicated to reducing the State to half its current size, or opposing immigration, or lower taxes.

  7. The man is a giant cunt, and he and his pals are getting desperate. No-one tells such obvious porkers unless he thinks the game is approching up.

  8. Mal Reynolds (Serenity)

    Guardian:dr

    Assuming he is talking about Trump and/or Brexit… apparently the sides with all the banks, all the existing politicians, all the media, all the foreign governments, all the international corporations and George Soros was outspent by… umm… Farage, Trump and… err… the working class?

  9. @Jim

    I see the BBC, funded by forcing people to pay their fees by legal dictat, constantly pushing Leftist themes.

    As do I. Believe or not, though, there are many on the left who claim to believe the BBC is a right wing propaganda organisation. Such nonsense is often posted at The Groan.

    Funnily enough they never go on to insist it should be funded by voluntary subscription.

  10. “a professional network staffed by thousands”

    Which ones? The biggest free market think-tank I can think of is the Koch-funded Cato, which has around 100 staff and perhaps another hundred associates.

    The only ones that can get near a thousand staff would be things like Amnesty or Greenpeace.

  11. > there are many on the left who claim to believe the BBC is a right wing propaganda organisation

    Yes, it’s bizarre. They also believe that one of the main reasons everyone doesn’t fiercely oppose Israel is that we’ve been brainwashed by the rabidly pro-Zionist BBC. You really have to wonder what sort of coverage they’d regard as unbiased.

  12. Godfrey’s Twitter posts are often quite funny. If he really did write that it is marvellous. The greatest parodies should be indistinguishable from the real thing.

  13. From the article: “Genuine campaigners, working in their free time”

    Doesn’t include Eddie Izzard then. In general does this mean anyone who is paid for their campaigning should be ignored – because their motives are not necessarily pure? In which case the vast bulk of climate science and activism is irrelevant.

  14. Chris Dillow (I think) nailed the BBC left/right issue. It is mainly just biased towards big organisations (state, corporate, third sector) and so gives too much weight to the orthodoxy. So people opposed to elements of that, left or right, see plenty to argue with.

    The BBC is staffed by fairly wealthy and educated metropolitan types. So there’s a lefty SJW hint. But it’s really all very centrist… very Blair, very Cameron… there’s middle-class self interest in display (house prices good, pretend austerity good) to enrage the lefties, and a massive boner for ‘public services’ to make sure that the idea of smaller government never gets any air.

  15. @Squander Two

    ‘Yes, it’s bizarre.’

    It’s not bizarre, it’s entirely understandable and also entirely in line with their playbook.

    If enough people claim that the BBC is left wing (which it obviously is) and this is allowed to go unchallenged, then politically unsavvy people (ie the majority) might eventually start to notice and then the BBC would be in trouble.

    So the left respond by claiming that, No, the BBC is right wing, so that it looks to the majority like a shit thowing contest, and a plague on both their houses.

    (Of course, there are leftists to whom the BBC really is right wing, because they’re literally insane, instead of just thick.)

  16. Bloke in Costa Rica

    “As usual, the left and centre (myself included) are beating ourselves up[…]”

    Steady on, old chap. That’s our job.

  17. Dear George –

    The sound you hear is uncontrollable laughter coming from inside Trump Tower.

    Stick to writing about your conversion from road-kill cuisine to veganism… It’s a sort of subject that suits you best.

  18. Compare and contrast:

    – “Genuine campaigners, working in their free time, simply cannot match a professional network staffed by thousands of well-paid, unscrupulous people.”

    – “What may seem like an organic, disparate movement is actually a well oiled machine that receives its funding from a handful of super rich liberal donors operating behind the anonymity of foundations and charities, according to a new report out today by the Committee on Environment and Public Works(EPW).
    The EPW report titled The Chain of Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA meticulously details how the “Billionaires’ Club” funds nearly all of the major environmental non-government organizations (NGO), many media outlets, and supposed grassroots activists. The Billionaire Report continues by describing the cozy relationship many environmental groups have with the executive branch and the revolving door that makes this possible.
    The most striking aspect of the Billionaire Report is the sheer amount of money that is in play. In 2011 alone, ten foundations donated upwards of half a billion dollars to environmental causes. Many of these foundations, whose assets are valued in the billions, meet and coordinate under the framework provided by the Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA). Described as the “funding epicenter of the environmental movement,” EGA members doled out $1.13 billion to environmental causes in 2011. EGA’s membership is not public but its clout is self-evident given the amount of money its members direct to recognizable environmental NGOs.”
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisprandoni/2014/07/30/breaking-senate-committee-report-details-environmentalists-inner-workings/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *