I HAVE warm memories of the council house I grew up in, back in the distant days when you lit the fire with balls of newspaper and, in the more upmarket homes, a zip firelighter. My family home had rattling windows fiercely battered from the howling winds of the Grampians and was on the very edges of that bit of Scotland where urban met rural.
My sister and I once saw what looked like an enormous wildcat waging war on a discarded fish and chip poke. It was prowling near the bus stop, arching its back at the Letham bus, too big and feral to be a domestic pet. Then it vanished back into the undergrowth.
Housing matters in our lives, it keeps us warm, and it protects us from the challenges real or imagined that are out there. Most of all it forges fond memories of a good start in life, a place you can look back on with a grateful nod.
On Thursday, I had the immense privilege of chairing the Shelter Scotland Hustings, an online lobbying event for those committed to ending homelessness and improving housing provision in Scotland. The major parties were all represented: Patrick Harvie of the Greens, Annie Wells of the Conservative and Unionist Party, Paul McGarry, the Scottish Liberal Democrat candidate for East Kilbride & Central Scotland, the SNP’s Kevin Stewart and Pauline McNeill of Scottish Labour.
Among the many issues that were addressed were the future of social and affordable housing in Scotland, overcrowding in existing housing stock, safeguarding tenants from eviction, rental control in the private sector, disability access to new builds, and the 100,000 new homes promised within the Scottish Government’s Housing to 2040 strategy.
It was an immensely challenging and rewarding event which brought charities, housing activists, community leaders and politicians together in the very best traditions of civic Scotland. There were over 180 participants and wide-ranging opinions about what housing policy in Scotland should look like in the next 10 years.
I came away from the event energised by the people who contributed and the unsung value that they bring to Scottish life. It also reminded me of how important “lobbying” is to the political process at a time when the whole idea of influencing policy has fallen into significant disrepute. The Greensill Scandal has exposed the worst aspects of self-serving influence, and although it may seem remote from our lives in Scotland, it undermines the important role that lobbying plays in public affairs.
David Cameron was arguing for a change the rules to allow Greensill Capital to receive an emergency loan. It was first reported by the Financial Times and Sunday Times and Cameron has since accepted his communications seeking to influence ministers should have been “done through only the most formal of channels, so there can be no room for misinterpretation”. Alas the room for misinterpretation is colossal and his texts to the Chancellor of the Exchequer paint both in a terrible light.
READ MORE: Labour fail in bid for Greensill inquiry but committees look to investigate
Cameron’s lobbying on behalf of a company that he personally benefited from has delivered a body blow to the principles and standards that govern how politicians behave. It will now become a matter for the cross-party Treasury Committee after Labour leader Keir Starmer’s demand for a wider enquiry into lobbying was rejected. In his address to the Westminster parliament Starmer claimed the Greensill Scandal is “the tip of the iceberg” of Tory sleaze.
If this pandemic has underlined anything it is the way that greed, self-interest, and cronyism are part of Conservative ideology. Whether its procurement chicanery in the face of a pandemic, avoidance of fair taxation law as they hurriedly scuttled away from the EU or dark money from questionable donors, Conservatives have been exposed yet again putting personal gain ahead of public good.
Cameron’s personal involvement is not the exception it is the new rule of opaque financial culture. Modern global capital has invented a bag of magic tricks such as supply-chain lending, buying, and selling debt, hedge fund management, shorting currencies, concealed wealth, off-shore havens and relocating corporate headquarters for tax efficiency.
Greensill is a scandal but it is also a symbol of a scandalous system that the Conservative Party have not only enabled but championed.
ONE of the obvious risks of David Cameron’s actions is that the word lobbying falls further into disgrace and taints the genuine views of interest groups that seek to influence policy in a democratic society. Although they both fall under the battered umbrella of the term “lobbying” the difference between what has been happening at Westminster and the diverse people who care about housing policy in Scotland is colossal.
Lobbying is a word that needs to be rehabilitated and freed from the culture of sleaze that is gripping Westminster yet again. One of the key challenges is to decouple lobbying from self-interest but that itself is far from simple.
We face a major set of choices that the Greensill scandal underlines. It seems obvious from the details that have been exposed thus far that David Cameron was pursuing an outcome from which he himself would benefit.
READ MORE: Greensill: Rishi Sunak is nowhere to be seen as MPs asks questions of Tory lobbying scandal
At the core of lobbying scandals is a tricky question – how can a mature democracy harness and manage self-interest to a greater good?
Peter Krykant, the activist behind mobile safer drug consumption facilities, is clearly a man driven by a mission. I have never met him, but I sense he is not driven by financial gain or by overweening self-interest.
Over the last 12 months I have supported a campaign to make Scotland the best country in the world for autistic people and people with a learning disability and to appoint the world’s first Commissioner for Autism. It is now enshrined in the SNP’s election manifesto.
There is a clear vested interest. My son has an ASD diagnosis, and I am determined to do what I can to shape a Scotland where he can grow up, contribute and thrive.
At the height of the Shelter Hustings event, a woman who gave her name as Morag, said: “I have been in temporary accommodation for over two years. Why is it acceptable to have my three teenage boys in one bedroom? They have no space to study from home, this has a major impact on learning.”
Of course, in the strictest interpretation of the term, Morag was motivated to ask her question by self-interest and the desire for better quality housing for her family, but it would be churlish to think that her motivations are in any way comparable to millionaire politicians engaged in self-serving text messages to influence decisions about public money.
Self-interest is modulated by where you are on a power spectrum. On one end, there are those who feel powerless in the face of the most basic human needs including inadequate housing, and at the other end, there are powerful people like Cameron and Rishi Sunak, who exist in a bubble of privilege and yet seem to be cavalier in their interpretation of what is right and what is wrong.
It’s not a culture that Scotland should tolerate much longer nor is it a model of self-serving lobbying that we need. We have a choice.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel