“Lobbyists”: what are they for?

I feel quite sure that some carefulyl-chosen and very very pretty barmaids – must have exquisite boobs as is inevitable  in this situation – would get government policy changed for you, far quicker and far cheaper in the long run, like about a couple of nights days. (Didn’t Harold Wilson, the old traitor, say that a week is a long time? A barmaid with nice boobs oculd get your defence policy changed in about 23 minutes, for about £200 in London. So why do you need someone like Weber Shandwick for £25,000 a month? Or is it more now? Westland “was going to pay” Reggie Watts £20,000 a month in 1987, as I was told on being offered emmployment at his…)

Truly, Sean Gabb’s assertions that “Big Business”, and its involuntary (or otherwise) desire for association with Big Statists, is not intrinsically friendly to individualism and liberty, are being borne out by fact.

David Davis

And the following extract from the Fabian trotskTimes says everything about these people:-

Lobbyists are engaged in a “desperate” scramble to secure people close to David Cameron, as companies shake up their public-relations operations to prepare for a Conservative government.

Tory officials are being offered double or triple their salaries to move to the private sector, jumping “from five figures to six figures pay for top people”, say industry insiders. Companies are waking up to the fact that links cultivated over 12 years of New Labour may be largely redundant after the general election, which must be held by next June.

Now the race is on to secure people close to the Cameron inner circle – insiders who help the Conservative leader to determine the opposition party’s policies and strategy.

“There are a lot of desperate lobbyists suddenly deciding that they’re going to try and suck up to the Tories as hard as possible, in a very overt and slightly vacuous kind of way,” said Neil O’Brien, director of Policy Exchange, a think-tank with close links to the Tory leadership.

Libertarians mostly agree that if “government” either would not or could not “do much”, then there would be no need for all these superfluous walking deadweights, consuming “resources” and at the same time egging big-statists on to initiate “initiatives”: about 100% of which cost large sums and produce no benefits.

2 responses to ““Lobbyists”: what are they for?

  1. Mainly they are the same people wearing different hats? If they remember to change them.