“Hidden influence is a larger one” was the room’s governing instinct: make influence visible before debating whether it is legitimate. The vote delivered an overwhelming Yes, but the more revealing feature was the unanimity of the written case behind it.
The floor’s most-respected Yes arguments went straight at the gap in the current system, insisting on “One register. No special door.” Another voter called the existing arrangement “a farce”, arguing that corporate teams and special advisers can bypass scrutiny, while “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
The No case was not merely defeated; it was absent. Instead, Yes voters supplied their own counterarguments: one warned about “small charities, who already have less resources to spend on lobbying the government”, while a reply conceded that “if lobbying is banned, they'll find a way to do it anyway.”
That makes this less a narrow demand for better paperwork than a distrustful reading of access to power. Some voters called lobbying “industrialised corruption”; others drew a line between regulation and abolition, arguing that ending it altogether could also remove “most communication between voters and politicians.”
The chamber wanted the doors opened, and several voters would have preferred them removed. The verdict was for transparency, but the mood behind it was suspicion.
16 Opinions
If big corporations are trying to rewrite laws, ordinary taxpayers have every right to know who is in the room. The current lobbying register is a farce... it lets massive in-house corporate teams and special advisers bypass the rules entirely and influence ministers in secret. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
It's industrialised corruption.
I believe lobbying absolutely invites corruption, and should be very tightly regulated.
YES Why would anyone want to allow people/organisations to corrupt our governments workings unhindered. That's what lobbying is - It's an attempt by persons/organisations to get government to pass laws that benefit them personally usually at the expense of & to the detriment of the rest of the British population. We the public should be able to see who's acting against our best interests. And also most importantly which MP's are supporting them!
Better, it should be banned. All public sector actions should be transparent, all spending, plans and decisions. On each level.
Yes, it would strengthen trust and reduce opportunities for corruption
Absolutely. We have a right to know what's going on, and let our MP know our opinions.
Of course back room deals happen but actual lobbying should be open and transparent.
Main issues would be for small charities, who already have less resources to spend on lobbying the government. Corporate lobbyists/foreign interests are not well regulated enough in this country, and politicians (current and former) have repeatedly proven to be untrustworthy in this area eg David Cameron Greensill.
If the only case against is "They'd have to fill in a form", well, they have to fill in a form. Lots of highly paid white collar staff, even in charities, with nothing much to do.