THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CULTURE, POLITICS AND SOCIETY

Culture and Politics

The Individual and the Community

Towards the end of the Twentieth Century, documentary maker Adam Curtis produced a riveting series titled “The Century of the Self”. He highlighted the ways in which the focal point in the United States and some other countries had moved from “We”, to “Me”, particularly in the era after the Second World War to the present day. Looking at some underlying causes, Curtis reviewed the genesis of the modern advertising industry in the 1920's, when it was beginning to be realised that the most effective way to induce consumers to buy products was to appeal to their underlying, even unconscious, drives and felt needs. Thus advertising moved from simply describing the features and merits of a product to appealing to consumers' feelings of guilt and in particular, their desires to be fashionable, have attractive “lifestyles” emulate celebrities and keep up with their peers.

In the United States, after the Second World War was won, Americans felt that they had made considerable sacrifices for the best of causes. One major contribution was serving the Allies' war machine from a massive industrial base. After the war, this massive machine needed to be fed, especially as soldiers were returning to civilian life, and needed civilian employment. Thus began a push to develop civilian uses for industry. The merits of “business” were pushed hard by politicians and corporations alike - and both were supported by a burgeoning advertising industry. The results were dramatic - full employment, and a sense of right to a good life.

Out of these needs grew a number of fundamental changes in society. In particular, the “American Dream” of freedom and a good life elided with possessions - of consumer durables, houses and lifestyles to match. It dawned on politicians that a population that worked hard to earn the cash to consume and “keep up with the Jones's” with was likely to be relatively compliant, and so political and consumer advertising began to look very similar. Perhaps the most blatant attempt to confuse the two came later in Britain, when premier John Major introduced his “Citizens' Charter”, which was nothing more than a series of standards for consumers, with little to do with citizenship.

Projecting these trends forward to the present day in the “Anglo” Societies (US and UK); we arrive at a situation in which Society has become confused with the Market, in which everybody is a consumer, in which the population is encouraged by a blanket of mass advertising to consume pretty well everything that affects their lives - consumer durables, food, confectionery, clothes, lifestyle products and services, political parties - all in the cause of a “good” life. The same values have been injected into public services and consumer “choice” has become the mantra for everything from rail transport and health services to electricity and water supplies.

The impacts of all of this have not been universally beneficial, particulary in Britain and the United States. Given unlimited choice, and exhorted to consume, the “have it all and have it now”, large numbers of people have been encouraged to obsessive consumption and excess. The effects have been drastic on public health, with booming obesity and associated diseases. Consumer debt has reached unsustainable limits, inequality has burgeoned, and large numbers of people cannot afford the basics of living.

To understand what lies underneath these trends, we have to go back to some deeper factors. In the latter part of the twentieth century, neo-liberal, free market thinking was espoused in the United States and Britain, led by Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Regan and pushed by a plethora of economists and “Freedom” institutes. The results were fundamental: the financial system was deregulated, and business was given a relatively free hand to promote their products and services free of government constraint. So began a massive consumer boom, and the era of a “Property Owning Democracy” gained momentum.

Why did the US and UK succumb so heavily to Free Market dogma?

Culture is a key dimension

It is likely that some key cultural factors had a significant hand in differentiating the US, Britain and some countries such as Australia from many other societies.

The cultures of these three countries show some very marked characteristics by comparison with many others.

These characteristics are Individualism and Masculinity.

To start with Individualism. This characteristic seems to have two sides. Taking responsibility for your own actions and taking care of the immediate family are undoubtedly beneficial behaviours in a society.

But Individualism taken to excess can easily stray into self-centeredness and a lack of concern for others

Masculinity fosters competitive behaviour, a concern for winning and a “winner-takes-all” culture, such as has been seen in investment banking.

Masculinity combined with Individuality and stirred by exploitative corporations and politicians, fuelled by a philosophy that denigrates the role of government and constraints on the “freedom” of individuals to do as they wish in the “market” is a truly potent mixture.

It is these two characteristics in combination that have made the United States and Britain particularly susceptible to financial instability, corporate excess, government weakness and have brought about the excesses of inequality that are poisoning their societies.

Sweden and the Nordic countries form a vivid contrast with the individualistic/ masculine societies

As we have seen*, most Nordic countries, and others such as the Netherlands, do not have a combination of high scores in the individualistic/ masculine dimensions. This appears to foster concern for society as a whole, less susceptibility to excesses of consumerism and inequality.

But the starkest contrasts are the ways in which cultural differences sharply differentiate the structure of political systems and the fundamental essence of politics.

(*See section on Society in this site)

Culture and Politics
Britain and America

One of the most noticeable features that differentiates these two countries from others such as Sweden, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, in fact, most of the Northern European countries, is political systems that are basically confrontational and conflictual as opposed to more collaborative forms.

In the Scandinavian/ Northern European systems, coalition government is the rule rather than the exception, and disagreement is managed by seeking for consensus rather fighting to the death in “win/lose” conflicts. This does not mean that there are not disagreements of policy emphasis between parties, but more that these differences are not hugely schismatic - that there is a broad consensus on the basic values upon which society depends. So for example, Sweden has experienced a swing to the right of politics, but the basic system of collaboration in policy formation between trades unions, management, local and national government has remained intact. This can be vividly contrasted by considering the outright win-lose conflict in Britain between the trades unions and Margaret Thatcher's government in the early 1980's, which effectively resulted in a massive power swing from the public to the private sectors and the unleashing of the investment banks.

Britain

The British political system has evolved over centuries, rather than having been fixed at a point in time by a written constitution. The basic structure is simple: two levels of legislature, the Commons and the House of Lords; and an executive, led by a Prime Minister. These days, the Prime Minister is also leader of a political party. The Commons is the primary legislature and is democratically elected, by a “first past the post” system. The Lords is in transition, being made up by a mix of members appointed by right, such as High Court judges and bishops; and the majority who are appointed by the political parties - and there is a rump of hereditary aristocrats. The composition of the Lords could be regarded as a complete muddle- a conflict has been running for years about whether it should be elected or not. The Lords' power to delay legislation can, however, be regarded as a useful counterbalance to the Commons in the event of one party having a large majority.

A fourth pillar of the system is the Monarchy, which has no executive powers and is said to have a role that might be described as “advise, warn and guide”, but as these functions are carried out in secret, no-one knows the true extent of the monarch's power. The role of the monarchy seems to be very dependent on the character of the person - Queen Elizabeth is much respected, so the monarchy is safe for the present.

The last element is the Judiciary, which is independent of party politics, has an elaborate infrastructure, and acts as a very valuable check on the executive. Law is made by Parliament and applied by the Judiciary, which also makes case law by its judgments.

Government by political parties

Behind the formal arrangements lie the real substance of the British system, the political parties. They form the bedrock of the system. The parties also demonstrate the relationships between the UK culture and politics. The main feature is perpetual conflict between parties of the right and left. In recent years, the ideological gap narrowed as the main left-leaning party shifted towards a more market-friendly stance. But the consequent collapse of the banking system and the rapid resumption of inequality has opened the gap again. The inherently conflictual nature of British politics has exacerbated the apparent schism in British politics - one party trumpeting “fairness” and the other rewards for success and hard work. A third force has emerged in the United Kingdom Independence Party - a party of protest which feeds on the general cynicism about political parties.

The reasons for this cynicism are clear for all to see....Conflict and a kind of corruption are designed-in to the UK political system

The physical design of the lower house of parliament is guaranteed in normal circumstances to encourage confrontation. (Exceptions have been two World wars).

Members of different parties confront each other across the chamber.

The behaviour of Members of Parliament often resembles a childrens' playground at a particularly disorderly junior school. Members shout, jeer, wave order papers and produce a sort of braying cacophony of sound that would not disgrace a football crowd.

The behavioural nadir of this bear-pit is Prime Minister's Question Time, when the PM and Leader of the Opposition engage in verbal jousting aimed at getting one over the opponent, supported by braying mobs on each side.

The nomenclature attached to the main political parties is very symbolic too - Government and Opposition. Thus two large political parties seek to defeat each other in order to introduce their own agendas.

Behind the scenes lies a massive edifice of the press, almost entirely supportive of the Right, and a vast lobbying machine, hell bent at influencing government to support policies that would be beneficial to their interests - or resist those that might be detrimental. The trades unions, which mainly support the Labour Party, are a countervailing force, but their influence has waned since the days of Margaret Thatcher.

Local and regional government has generally been weakened since the Thatcher era as central government has pulled many powers back to the centre - a process continued under New Labour. Exceptions are Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, where there is a tug-of-war going on - with a referendum to come in Scotland about total independence.

Lobbying for influence - Party funding

Political parties are in the main funded by interest groups; banking, property or corporate in the case of the Conservatives, or Trades Unions in the case of the Labour party.

Unlike the Scandinavian countries, political parties are not state-funded, allowing full scope for a massive lobbying machine comprised of representatives of every kind of financial and corporate interest. These have superseded Trades Unions as the prime force behind UK politics. Some of the most effective of these shadowy lobbying organisations have represented the tobacco, drinks, food, media, financial industries and large charities. There is no doubt that their activities have made a full contribution to the financial crash and the lack of action following it - and in particular to the growing public health crises related to obesity and drink-related conditions.

Failure of Coalition government?

The result of the 2010 UK general election, in which none of the large parties won a parliamentary majority, resulted in a coalition government formed between the Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties, with the Conservatives as the majority partner. The results have not strongly supported those who hoped that coalition government would result in compromises leading to a consensus on what was most in the national interest. Alas, the outcome appears to have been policies that have become more and more hateful to the coalition partners, and constant bickering, lobbying and counter-lobbying.

So Britain is stuck with an electoral system designed to support “winner takes all” in a context where the voting population is becoming more and more cynical about the behaviour of politicians, who desperately seek to create “products” that might appeal to voters canvassed through Focus Groups; and political parties that seem to spend more energy on undermining the opposition than on improving society.

It cannot be ignored that the British political system is deeply influenced by a culture that fosters individualism, competition and a “winner-takes all” mentality.

The United States

The United States political system is enshrined in the constitution of 1789. It is the supreme law of the United States of America. The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government. Its first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress; the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Articles Four, Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the thirteen States to ratify it.

Since the Constitution was put into effect in 1789, it has been amended twenty-seven times. The first ten amendments, inserted shortly after the original constitution was written, are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. At seven articles and twenty-seven amendments, it is the shortest written constitution in force. The Constitution is interpreted, supplemented, and implemented by a large body of constitutional law. The Constitution of the United States was the first constitution of its kind, and has influenced the constitutions of other nations.

There is considerable reverence in the United States for the letter of the constitution, especially from those who wish to use it to protect their rights. Notable is the use of the article guaranteeing the right to bear arms, which is still used, despite rampant mortality and particularly the fact that the US is a predominantly urban society, quite different to the way it was when the constitution was drafted.

Recent Trends

In all political systems, there is a disconnect between the formal arrangements, as set out in constitutions and relevant laws, and the informal arrangements, as occur in practice. Arguably, in the United States this disconnect is sharper than in most other democratic systems because:

• the US Constitution is an old one (late 18th century) whereas most countries have had several constitutions with the current one typically being a 20th century creation
• the US Constitution is relatively immutable so it is very difficult to change the provisions to reflect the reforms that have come about over time from the pressure of events
• since the US adopted its Constitution, the US has become the pre-eminent world economic and political power which has brought about major changes in how the Presidency operates, most especially in the international sphere

Changes in practice

What this means is that, in the last century and most especially since the end of the Second World War, the reality of how the American political system operates has changed quite fundamentally in terms which are not always evident from the terms of the Constitution (and indeed some might argue are in some respects in contravention of the Constitution). The main changes are as follows:

• The balance of power between the Congress and the President has shifted significantly in favour of the President. This is evident in the domestic sphere through practices like 'impoundment' (when money is taken from the purpose intended by Congress and allocated to another purpose favoured by the President) and in the international sphere through refusal to invoke the War Powers Resolution in spite of major military invasions. Different terms for this accretion of power by the Presidency are "the unitary executive" and "the imperial presidency". However, a President faced by an intractable and hostile Congress will find it very difficult to push through reform, as witnessed by president Obama's attempts to introduce public health reforms.
• The impact of private funding of political campaigns and of lobbyists and special interest groups in political decision making have increased considerably. Candidates raise their own money for campaigns, there is effectively no limit on the money that can be spent in such campaigns (thanks to what are called super Political Action Committees), and the levels of expenditure - especially in the presidential primaries and election proper - have risen astronomically. In the presidential race of 2012, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent over one billion dollars. All this has led to some observers describing the American political system as a plutocracy, since it is effectively controlled by private finance from wealthy individuals and big businesses, which expect certain policies and practices to follow from the candidates they are funding, and big donors, who often expect preferment such as an ambassadorship from a candidate elected as President. In effect, this transfers power from the people to sectional interests.
• There has been a growth of what is called "pork barrel" politics through the use of "earmarks". The term "pork barrel" refers to the appropriation of government spending for projects that are intended primarily to benefit particular constituents, such as those in marginal seats, or campaign contributors. Such appropriations are achieved through "earmarks" which can be found both in legislation (also called "hard earmarks" or "hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "soft earmarks" or "softmarks").
• The nature of political debate in the United States has become markedly more partisan and bitter. The personal lifestyle as well as the political record of a candidate might well be challenged and even the patriotism or religiosity of the candidate may be called into question. Whereas the politics of most European countries (except the UK, with a similar culture to the US) has become more consensual, US domestic politics has become polarised and tribal. As a result, the political culture is often more concerned with satisfying the demands of the political 'base' rather than attempting to achieve a national consensus.

One final trend worth noting is the frequency of the same family to provide members of Congress. Low polling in elections, the high cost of running for election, and the focus on the individual more than the party all mean that a well-known name can work well for a candidate. Everyone is familiar with the Kennedys, Clintons and Bushs in American politics but, in 2014, there are no less than 37 members of Congress who have a relative who has served in the legislature.

A Divided Democracy

All nation states are divided, especially in terms of power and wealth, but also - to different extents - by gender, race, ethnicity, religion and other factors. Indeed the constitution and institutions of a democratic society are deliberately intended to provide for the expression and resolution of such divisions. However, it is often observed that the USA has become an especially divided democracy in at least three respects:

1. It is divided horizontally through the 'separation of powers', so that the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are quite distinct in terms of both powers and personalties.
2. It is divided vertically through the federal system of government with the division of powers between the federal government and the state governments a very important issue that was the subject of the Civil War of 1861-5.
3. It is divided politically through the sharp (and often bitter) differences of view on many economic issues like tackling the recession and reforming health care and social issues ranging from gun control to gay rights. Since 2009, such differences have been highlighted by the presence of the first black President in the White House and the rapid emergence of a Tea Party movement that is both virulently anti-Obama and anti-mainstream Republicanism. It seems that fierce division and conflict has become embedded in the US political system - probably cemented by an individualistic and competitive culture.

One of the most visible and dramatic illustrations of how the divisons in American politics frustrate decision-making is the regular failure to agree a federal budget before the start of the new financial period. This results in what is known as federal 'shutdown' when most federal employees are sent home because they cannot be paid and many federal institutions therefore close down. This is not an isolated occurrence: it has happened 18 times since 1976 (the last one was in 2013). It has become almost impossible for President Obama to pass legislation through the strongly Republican House of Representatives.

The weakening of democracy in the face of rich and powerful interests

The United Kingdom and United States have become grossly unequal societies. This means the accumulation of wealth in the hands of very small minorities in both countries. This is leading to a marked swing in political influence towards the selfish interests of wealth possessors - individuals and organisations - in the process markedly diminishing the influence of the vast majority of the populace.

This results in a number of effects:

• Political agendas formulated to suit the interests of the powerful.
• This takes two forms, first powerful backing for parties that suit them - and then, great resistance to enacting legislation that might harm their interests.
• So the population is brainwashed with particular agendas, and even if populist parties get into government, they tend to be hamstrung

Funding Politics

In the United States, has no limit on the amount of cash or other forms of support that special interests may give to parties and individuals. This has led some to describe the US as a Plutocracy rather than a true democracy. In the UK the rules are stricter, but the main political parties still receive most of their funding from particular interests; finance and business in the case of the Conservative party and to a lesser degree the Unions for Labour.

The situation in Sweden is quite different

Sweden is a parliamentary system - which means that the strict division of powers that exist between Executive, Legislature and Judiciary in other systems - such as USA do not exist here - there is indeed some overlap - for example the Executive (the Government/Regeringen) are usually elected members of the legislature (Parliament/Riksdagen). It's usual for the leader of the majority party or block in parliament to be asked to form the government after an election - if there is no overall majority there can be negotiations between parties to form coalitions.

Unique aspects of Swedish Government

Ministerial steering is forbidden: in Sweden the central policy departments are traditionally very small whereas the implementing agencies are large and powerful. Ministers are not allowed to operate a 'chain of command and control' influence over the agencies - it is forbidden that a Minister should attempt to influence for example an individual immigration case or how the Social Insurance Agency assesses benefit claims - although these is some debate about how much 'informal' contact takes place.

Local government independence - in Sweden local government is traditionally independent. There are 2 types of local government.
- primary kommuns - which are usually just called kommuns responsible for education, roads, social services, buildings, environmental health etc.
- secondary kommuns - usually known as Landstings or County Councils whose biggest responsibility is healthcare.
These Councils have their own tax raising powers to levy local income taxes - so the amount of tax you pay depends where you live and the amount paid for healthcare, which is variable between. Many of the laws passed by central government are so called framework laws - which means that they are just a broad aims and policies with no detail - the local council members decide the details of how policies are to be implemented - so the organisation and content of policies may be very different in different kommuns. Some governments may attempt to steer more actively by making grants available for specific purposes - however there is a tradition that agencies and government ministers do not attempt to involve themselves too much in what kommuns do

Representation in parliament. Sweden is a proportional representation system - which means certain differences if you are used to the first part the post concept in UK/USA. Each constituency has several MP seats in parliament - and seats are allocated in accordance to the proportion of votes cast in the constituency - so if the Social Democrats get 30% of the votes - then they get 30% of the seats - however there are other differences:
-you do not have an individual member of parliament for your area - there are several
-you don't have to vote for an individual at all - you can simply vote for the party list
-access to parliament is party based - there is not a real concept of independent or unaffiliated Members - political parties must reach a certain threshold to get into parliament so not all will get in - to gain seats in Parliament parties must obtain 4% of votes nationally or 15% in a single constituency.

The Judiciary has some role in interpreting laws - however for some types of clarification this occurs through the central agencies rather than the courts. For example a problem with the school system in a would normally be referred to the complaints section of Skolinspektionen rather than the courts.

Other Stakeholders

Trades Unions and Employers

Trades Unions are very strong in Sweden, more than 70% of Swedes belong to a union. As well as traditional functions of negotiating employment terms and pay, the unions have strong influence in the political sphere, and work in collaboration with Employers' bodies to influence economic and industrial policy. In practice, this means that Swedish political processes are based on a principle of collaboration rather than confrontation and there is a tradition of solving differences by reaching accomodations rather than all out confrontation. In this regard, the qualities and “feel” of Swedish politics differs considerably from the UK and US.

Party finance in Sweden

(From Wikipedia)

Since the 1970s party finance in Sweden on all levels of the political system depends heavily on public subsidies. At the national level they provide 80 to 90 per cent of the major parties' annual revenue.

With an estimated SEK 146 (more than $17) per voter a year the spending level is among the highest in the world of established democracies..

BUYING INFLUENCE, UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY

In addition to the funding of political parties by wealthy institutions and individuals, the ongoing processes of the legislature in both Britain and America are subject to intense pressure by lobbyists.

We will finish this section by reviewing how democracy is threatened by wealthy interests, which can subvert the will of the majority of citizens.

Lobbying: A Case Study

Washington

A report in The Nation in 2014 suggested that while the number of 12,281 registered lobbyists was a decrease since 2002, lobbying activity was increasing and "going underground" as lobbyists use "increasingly sophisticated strategies" to obscure their activity. Analyst James Thurber estimated that the actual number of working lobbyists was close to 100,000 and the industry brings in $9 billion annually. Political scientist Thomas R. Dye once said that politics is about battling over scarce governmental resources: who gets them, where, when, why and how. Since government makes the financial rules in a complex economy such as the United States, it is logical that various organizations, businesses, individuals, nonprofits, trade groups, religions, charities and others -which are affected by these rules- will exert as much influence as they can to have rulings favorable to their cause.

Since the 1970s, there has been explosive growth in the lobbying industry, particularly in Washington D.C.. By 2011, one estimate of overall lobbying spending nationally was $30+ billion dollars. An estimate of lobbying expenses in the federal arena was $3.5 billion in 2010, while it had been only $1.4 billion in 1998 And there is prodigious data since firms are required to disclose lobbying expenditures on a quarterly basis.

Effectiveness of lobbying

There is general agreement that money is a key variable in lobbying.

The general consensus view is that lobbying generally works overall in achieving sought-after results for clients, particularly since it has become so prevalent with substantial and growing budgets, although there are dissenting views. A study by the investment-research firm Strategas which was cited in The Economist, and the Washington Post compared the 50 firms that spent the most on lobbying relative to their assets, and compared their financial performance against that of the S&P 500 corporations in the stock market; the study concluded that spending on lobbying was a "spectacular investment" yielding "blistering" returns comparable to a high-flying hedge fund, even despite the financial downturn of the past few years. A 2009 study by University of Kansas professor Raquel Meyer Alexander suggested that lobbying brought a substantial return on investment. A 2011 meta-analysis of previous research findings found a positive correlation between corporate political activity and firm performance.

UK Lobbying

What does a tax-avoiding, polluting, privatising corporation have to do to get its way with the British government? "We all know how it works," said David Cameron of lobbying. But do we? Lobbyists are the paid persuaders whose job it is to influence the decisions of government. Typically, they operate behind closed doors, through quiet negotiation with politicians. And the influence they enjoy is constructed very consciously, using a whole array of tactics.

Lobbyists operate in the shadows - deliberately. As one lobbyist notes: "The influence of lobbyists increases when it goes largely unnoticed by the public." But if the reasons why companies lobby are often obscured, it is always a tactical investment. Whether facing down a threat to profits from a corporate tax hike, lobbying to stop restrictions on products like drink an d tobacco, or pushing for market opportunities - such as government privatisations - lobbying has become another way of making money.

How it works

Here are the 10 key steps that lobbying businesses will follow to bend government to their will.

1. Control the ground

   Lobbyists succeed by owning the terms of debate, steering conversations away from those they can't win and on to those they can. If a public discussion on a company's environmental impact is unwelcome, lobbyists will push instead to have a debate with politicians and the media on the hypothetical economic benefits of their ambitions. Once this narrowly framed conversation becomes dominant, dissenting voices will appear marginal and irrelevant.

2. Spin the media

   The trick is in knowing when to use the press and when to avoid it. The more noise there is, the less control lobbyists have. As a way of talking to government, though, the media is crucial. Messages are carefully crafted. Even if the corporate goal is pure, or self-interested profit-making, it will be dressed up to appear synonymous with the wider, national interest. At the moment, that means economic growth and jobs.
   
   Private healthcare also regrouped after the wrong messages went public. As Andrew Lansley embarked on his radical reforms of the NHS, private hospitals and outsourcing firms were talking to investors about the "clear opportunities" to profit from the changes. After comments by Mark Britnell, the head of health at accountancy giants KPMG giants and a former adviser of David Cameron, hit the headlines in May 2011 - Britnell told an investors' conference that "the NHS will be shown no mercy and the best time to take advantage of this will be in the next couple of years" - the industry got a grip. Lobby group The NHS Partners Network moved quickly to get everyone back on-message and singing from "common hymn sheets", as its chief lobbyist David Worskett explained. The reforms were about the survival of the NHS in straitened times. Just nobody mention the bumper profits.

3. Engineer a following

   It doesn't help if a corporation is the only one making the case to government. That looks like special pleading. What is needed is a critical mass of voices singing to its tune. This can be engineered.
   
   The forte of lobbying firm Westbourne is in mobilising voices behind its clients. Thirty economists, for example, signed a letter to the FT in 2011 in support of high speed rail project HS2; 100 businesses endorsed another published in the Daily Telegraph.
   
   Westbourne was also hired in 2011 to lobby against the top rate of tax, although who was behind its "50p tax campaign" remains a mystery. Ahead of the chancellor's annual Budget announcement in early 2012, letters appeared in the press demanding he scrap it. The FT's was signed by 20 economists. The Telegraph's by the bosses of 573 SMEs, described as the "bedrock" of British industry. A quick glance, though, revealed it included five managers from the Switzerland-based banking giant Credit Suisse. The paper's commentary noted the alarm this new call from "ordinary British business" would cause inside government.

4. Buy in credibility

   Corporations are one of the least credible sources of information for the public. What they need, therefore, are authentic, seemingly independent people to carry their message for them.
   
   The tobacco companies are pioneers of this technique. Their recent campaign against plain packaging has seen them fund newsagents to push the economic case against the policy and encourage trading standards officers to lobby their MPs. British American Tobacco also currently funds the Common Sense Alliance, which is fronted by two ex-policemen and campaigns against "irrational" regulation.

5. Sponsor a Think-tank

   "The think-tank route is a very good one," said ex-minister Patricia Hewitt to undercover reporters seeking lobbying advice. Some think-tanks will provide companies with a lobbying package: a media-friendly report, a Westminster event, ear-time with politicians. "The exact same services that a lobbying agency would provide," says one lobbyist. "They're just more expensive."
   
   The insurers did turn to think-tanks, including free-market advocates Reform. This has lobbied for more "insurance-based private funding" in the health service. Prudential, the insurance giant behind PruHealth, was Reform's most generous sponsor in 2012, investing £67,500 in the think-tank.
   
   The BBC has also come under repeated recent criticism for inviting commentators from the leading neo-liberal think-tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), to talk about its opposition to the plain packaging of cigarettes, without disclosing the Institute's tobacco funding. Although the IEA does not disclose who funds it, British - American Tobacco concedes it has recently paid the IEA £30,000, with more to come this year.

6. Consult your critics

   Companies faced with a development that has drawn the ire of a local community will often engage lobbyists to run a public consultation exercise. Again, not as benign as it sounds. "Businesses have to be able to predict risk and gain intelligence on potential problems," says ex-Tesco lobbyist Bernard Hughes. "The army used to call it reconnaissance; we call it consultation."
   
   For some in the business, community consultation - anything from running focus groups, exhibitions, planning exercises and public meetings - is a means of flushing out opposition and providing a managed channel through which would-be opponents can voice concerns. Opportunities to influence the outcome, whether it is preventing an out-of-town supermarket or protecting local health services, are almost always nil.

7. Neutralise the opposition

   Lobbyists see their battles with opposition activists as "guerilla warfare". They want government to listen to their message, but ignore counter arguments coming from campaigners, such as environmentalists, who have long been the bane of commercial lobbyists. So, they need to deal with the "antis".
   
   Lobbyists have also long employed divide-and-rule tactics. One Shell strategy proposed to "differentiate interest groups into friends and foes", building relationships with the former, while making it "more difficult for hardcore campaigners to sustain their campaigns. Then there are the more serious activities used primarily when big-money commercial interests are threatened, such as the infiltration of opposition groups, otherwise known as spying. Household names such as Shell, BAE Systems and Nestlé have all been exposed for spying on their critics. Wikileaks' Global Intelligence Files revealed that groups such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International and animal rights organisation Peta were all monitored by global intelligence company Stratfor, once described as a "shadow CIA".

8. Control the web

   Today's world is a digital democracy, say lobbyists. Gone are the old certainties of how decisions were made "by having lunch with an MP, or taking a journalist out," laments one. It presents a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.
   
   One key way to control information online is to flood the web with positive information, which is not as benign as it sounds. Lobbying agencies create phoney blogs for clients and press releases that no journalist will read - all positive content that fools search engines into pushing the dummy content above the negative, driving the output of critics down Google rankings. Relying on the fact that few of us regularly click beyond the first page of search results, lobbyists make negative content "disappear".
   
   Another means of restricting access to information is the doctoring of Wikipedia, "a ridiculous organisation," in veteran lobbyist Tim Bell's words. Accounts associated with his firm, Bell Pottinger, have been caught scrubbing Wikipedia profiles of arms manufacturers, financial firms, a Russian oligarch and the founder of libel specialists Carter-Ruck.
   
   Without doubt, lobbyists need access to politicians. This doesn't always equate to influence, but deals can only be cooked up once in the kitchen. And access to politicians can be bought. It is not a cash deal, rather an investment is made in the relationship. Lobbyists build trust, offer help and accept favour.
   
   The best way to shortcut the process of relationship-building is to hire politicians' friends, in the form of ex-employees or colleagues. Bill Morgan is a good example. In recent years, he's been backwards and forwards twice between Andrew Lansley's office and health-lobbying specialists MHP. Its clients had "obviously benefited" from Morgan's inside knowledge of Conservative health policy, MHP wrote. They could "look forward to continuing to be at the heart of the major policy debates".

9. And finally ...

   There is the perception, at least, that decisions taken in government could be influenced by the reward of future employment. It's a concern that has been expressed for the best part of a century. Today, however, the number of people moving through the revolving door is off the scale.
   
   The top rung of the Department of Health has in recent years experienced huge traffic towards the private sector. The department that sees more movement than any other, though, is still the Ministry of Defence. Since 1996, officials and military officers have taken up more than 3,500 jobs in arms and defence related companies. Two hundred and thirty-one jobs were secured in 2011/12 alone.