Lord Robertson — former NATO chief and Blair-era defence minister — is supporting the “need” for welfare cuts to boost defence spending, according to legacy media.
This has been happening for three consecutive weeks, and throughout that time legacy media have ignored Robertson’s long-standing affiliation with ‘defence’ firms and global oil giants.
You can read our coverage here and here. For three weeks straight the Canary has been filling in the blanks left by the chummy old boys’ club of the British press — serving in the interests of politics and big industry.
We’re a bit tired of it, but let’s go again…
Tight budgets and looming threats?
Lord Robertson appeared in front of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on 27 April. The committee was talking about ‘societal resilience’.
ITV published a piece on the evening of 27 April. The article quoted Robertson saying:
It would be horrible to think it would take an actual crisis, an actual attack on the United Kingdom before we woke up to the kind of threats that are facing us.
The problem is how to pay for it when budgets are so tight, and the public expects a certain level of spending on other priorities. This is the ‘guns versus butter’ argument, and Robertson is scathing about it.
The peer said:
There will be no butter if we don’t have guns. If you’ve got a war, it costs a lot of money. We finished paying for the Second World War in 2016.
You know that’s a war that we won… so it’s a much more expensive proposition than deterrence is.
And he told the panel:
It may well be that other things are preoccupying the mind of the prime minister and the secretary of state for defence, and that is postponing it, but it’s regrettable nonetheless.
If you read this piece as an interested citizen you might think Robertson is a well-meaning expert sharing his professional opinion. Maybe that is what he is doing… But if the author cited Robertson’s decades-long paid role at a major US defence consultancy, that might change how you looked at his comments, right?
Exactly.
Vested interests in war
Back in April, the Canary dug into the corporate ties of several key figures advocating for welfare cuts to fund war — Robertson included. At the time, Lord Robertson said:
There is a corrosive complacency today in Britain’s political leadership. Lip service is paid to the risks, the threats, the bright red signals of danger – but even a promised national conversation about defence can’t be started.
His arms industry links went unmentioned…
Then on the week of 23 April, the Guardian cited new comments from Robertson — without mentioning his arms trade links. That time had Robertson used a think-tank event to argue for:
lifting defence spending to 3.5% of GDP by 2035 in line with a NATO target.
On 27 April, ITV did the same…
For the record (again), the Cohen Group defence consultancy website describes Robertson’s role with them as a senior counsellor. He’s been there since 2004…
The Cohen Group even brag on their website about brokering big deals between a US war firm and an unnamed European country:
A leading US-based global aerospace and defense firm approached The Cohen Group (TCG) for assistance in competing for a multi-billion contract in Europe.
But there is more…
Remunerated by arm firms
Robertson’s registered interests as a peer indicate he has had “remunerated employment” with — and has reportedly been paid by — various unnamed firms. This includes his role as a:
Senior Adviser on geo-political and geo-strategic issues to 5654 & Company (consultancy founded to help companies act to earn reputation) (suspended 16 July 2024).
The Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists says ‘5654 & Co’ worked with arms firmsRaytheon and Melrose PLC between January and March 2023.
The register also says Robertson has “shareholdings” with Weir Group PLC – an engineering firm with major global mining interests in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe. Robertson is also reportedly an advisor to British Petroleum (BP).
We don’t know if this is an editorial failure or an example of vested interests shaping coverage. We hope in good faith it is the former. Nevertheless, important public interest details keep being left out of major stories.
We reckon if a wealthy politician with arms links is lobbying for the less well-off to pay for weapons, that should be reported. But that’s just us…
Feature image via the Canary
By Joe Glenton
From Canary via This RSS Feed.