As the Atlas Network and its affiliates pose a clear threat to meaningful climate action, Starmer should be wary of any association with them or their ideological allies.

With the Tories firmly locked into an internal crisis, their former allies among prominent right-wing think tanks appear to be shifting their focus towards Reform UK. The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA), the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), and the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) all joined forces with Nigel Farage at Reform’s first annual conference in Birmingham last week. 

As the party embraced these think tanks, reporters from independent media organisations which have been critical of Reform, including Byline Times,DeSmog, and LFF, were denied access to the event. 

One especially concerning aspect of these groups’ alliance with Reform is their mutual opposition to ‘green’ agendas and support for the interests of the fossil fuel industry. These think tanks have long opposed climate policies, framing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as placing too many costs on ordinary people. The IEA, for example, has consistently downplayed the human role in climate change, while the TPA has long been critical of the government’s green subsidies. Reform’s leader Nigel Farage, who hopes to become “the voice of opposition” in Parliament, is a vocal critic of climate science and opponent of climate action. He has called for the UK’s 2050 net zero emissions target to be scrapped entirely. 

At the Reform Conference, a session entitled The Bully State: How Nanny is Taking Over Britain featured James McMurdock, a Reform UK MP, alongside George Morris Seers, the UK public affairs head of Japan Tobacco International (JTI). The ASI website declared that the conference event was to focus on how “burgeoning public health interventions” are allegedly restricting individual freedoms. “We are asking where these coercions have come from and how we can limit them,” the event page stated.

The Atlas Network

These think tanks, which seek to popularise policies and arguments that right-wing politicians can use to achieve their aims, are part of the Atlas Network. This Washington, D.C.-based coalition comprises of almost 600 free-market groups operating in around 100 countries. Founded in 1981 by British businessman Anthony Fisher, the network has been instrumental in promoting radical free-market policies and has had particular influence over the Conservative Party. Following the EU referendum in 2016, conservative think tanks in the UK and US exploited the crisis. Two UK Atlas partners, the IEA and the Legatum Institute, gained unprecedented access to ministers as they pushed for a hard Brexit. They consistently briefed Brexiteer MPs in the European Research Group (ERG). “They had lots of meetings with ministers because politicians like people promising simple answers, but often those answers were not there,” Raoul Ruparel, a former special adviser to Theresa May on Europe, told the Guardian.

These ultra-free market think tanks also have a history of opposing climate action, often working to protect the interests of fossil fuel companies. Atlas Network affiliates, including the IEA, have also used their influence to vilify climate protesters, portraying them as extremists. These groups have lobbied governments, produced white papers, and collaborated with the media to paint climate action as not only unnecessary but dangerous.

A 1991 report from Atlas member The Mackinac Institute refers to early environmentalists like EarthFirst activists and the prominent US environmentalist David Brower, as “reactionaries” who are “anti-human.” Fast-forward to 2019, and the IEA, a supposed champion of freedom of expression and the right to protest, referred to Extinction Rebellion (XR) as an “extremist group.”

“I am not saying that every member of Extinction Rebellion advocates violence, or will at some point start advocating violence. I am saying that Extinction Rebellion’s apocalyptic mindset lends itself to justifying violence, and very easily so,” wrote Andy Mayer, CEO, company secretary and energy analyst at the IEA.

Such anti-climate activist rhetoric and lobbying is often fed directly to Conservative politicians. Take Liz Truss. As foreign secretary, she held secret meetings with think tanks advocating for the UK to embrace a hardline free-market agenda. When Truss became leader of the Conservative Party, a former climate adviser to the Obama administration, warned that her leadership would be disastrous if she followed the tactics of groups like the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Cato Institute, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

“One of the reasons that the politics around climate change in the US is different to the UK right now is because of this powerful force of right-wing think tanks funded by fossil fuel interests,” Jonathan Phillips, who advised the US House of Representatives’ climate committee, told openDemocracy.

As prime minister, Truss prioritised efforts to reduce high energy costs amid the cost-of-living crisis. These measures included a promise to increase oil and gas production in the UK. She also spoke of her intent to extract more fossil fuels from the North Sea and lift the ban on fracking. When Truss launched her “Popular Conservatism” faction of the Tory Party in February, it immediately attacked net-zero targets and environmental organisations, following, as DeSmog described, “the playbook established by libertarian lobby groups.”

Truss is not the only prominent figure within this faction who opposes climate policies. Lord Frost, another leading “PopConner,” is a vocal critic of climate science and serves as a director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group known for its climate change denial. Unsurprisingly, the director of PopCons is Mark Littlewood, the former managing director of the IEA. The IEA is widely credited with shaping Truss’s disastrous political platform. After the infamous mini-budget, Mark Littlewood said: “We’re on the hook for it now. If it doesn’t work it’s your fault and mine.”

Far from succeeding, the mini-budget crashed the UK economy, and its repercussions are still being felt today. But as Guardian columnist George Monbiot wrote in a piece about the Atlas Network, despite its failure, media outlets, including the BBC, continue to treat these corporate lobbyists with undue credibility. Monbiot noted how, in 2023, the IEA was platformed on British media an average of 14 times a day.

Monbiot certainly raises a valid point. Coverage of Rachel Reeves’ speech at this week’s Labour conference in mainstream media was notably influenced by references to right-wing think tanks. For example, in its report on the chancellor’s decision to keep the single-person council tax discount, the Telegraph featured analysis from the TaxPayers’ Alliance, a member of the Atlas Network. The think tank claimed that scrapping the discount would have generated £5.4 billion, significantly more than the £1.5 billion expected from the cuts to the winter fuel allowance. Yet another example of the right-wing media and right-wing think tanks working in tandem.

Atlas Network’s growing support in Europe

As well as its long-held influence on US and UK politicians and policy, Atlas has a rising presence in Europe. Just a few days before the EU elections in May, the European Liberty Forum took place in Madrid, which was organised by the Atlas Network, and attended by far right leaders. It came on the heels of another gathering of the global far right, also in Madrid, which was organised by the Spanish party Vox, and attended by Marine Le Pen, the Italian and Hungarian prime ministers Georgia Meloni and Viktor Orban, the Argentine president Javier Milei and close allies of Donald Trump such as Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is a key member of the Atlas Network, and Milei’s radical austerity and deregulatory political platform is said to be heavily influenced by Atlas Network think tanks. 

Meloni, leader of the far-right Brothers of Italy party, has ties to the Atlas Network and its partners. In April 2023, during her first visit to the UK as prime minister of Italy, when she met her “friend” Rishi Sunak, as she described him, Meloni gave a speech at the Policy Exchange think tank, a former member of the Atlas Network. In 2017 the Policy Exchange received $30,000 from oil and gas giant ExxonMobil. When he was prime minister, Sunak praised the think tank for laws that target green activists, and “helped us draft” a crackdown on climate protests.

Starmer meets Meloni

Last week, Keir Starmer met with the Italian leader to discuss immigration. “You’ve made remarkable progress,” in tackling migration, the PM said at a joint press conference with Meloni.  Starmer’s praise of Meloni’s immigration policies raised eyebrows within the Labour Party.  During several fringe events I attended at this week’s Labour Conference, the discussion referenced the controversial meeting. Delegates I spoke to largely viewed the encounter as “outrageous.” Such concern was also publicly raised among several left-wing Labour MPs.

“Why is Starmer meeting with Italian PM Giorgia Meloni, a literal fascist, to discuss immigration? What does he hope to learn from her?” tweeted Diane Abbott.

Kim Johnson, Labour MP, told the Guardian that it was “disturbing” to see Starmer seeking to learn lessons from Italy. MP Nadia Whittome tweeted that Labour should build “an asylum and immigration system with compassion at its heart” instead.

In line with George Monbiot’s critique of the media’s failure to scrutinise influential right-wing think tanks and their influence on government policy, the Starmer-Meloni meeting received little critical coverage in the UK media. The National Scot was one of the few publications to provide any critical commentary, describing how the meeting was labelled as “deeply disturbing.”

Another concern raised by speakers and delegates at the Labour conference was that as Reform UK, which is cosying up to influential anti-green Atlas Network factions, grows in popularity, its right-wing demands such as abolishing net zero, are likely to put pressure on Labour.

In an era where populism and extremism are gaining ground, Starmer puts at risk Labour’s core values by courting figures like Meloni. As the Atlas Network and its affiliates pose a clear threat to meaningful climate action, Starmer should be wary of any association with them or their ideological allies. Unlike the US with its long history of cheap energy, there is little evidence yet that the right-wing attack on green policies is gaining traction with voters. Indeed, they remain mildly supportive of a ‘save the planet’ political agenda. Immigration though, is a wholly different ball game. Inevitably politicians are attracted to the siren voices of ‘what works’ but Meloni’s immigration policy is not working and will not work. Outsourcing immigration control to the Tunisians has brought only corruption and inhumanity. Starmer would do well to steer clear of policies that are doomed to fail, both morally and practically.

Right-wing media watch – The Murdoch soap opera that could shake up right-wing media 

A real-life family feud that outshines the drama of an earlier TV series based on the same family. It could only be the Murdochs. The cameras might not be allowed in the Nevada courtroom, but speculation is brewing about a legal battle that could determine the future of the world’s most powerful media empire.

The crux of the court battle is what will happen to the media empire when 93-year-old Rupert Murdoch dies. Could his children, some of whom lean a little too left for the media mogul’s liking, wrest control of the company from his chosen successor, Lachlan, the loyal Conservative son?

To prevent such a scenario, the media baron is trying to rewrite the rules of the family trust, as first revealed by the New York Times in July.  The trust currently gives his four eldest children equal control of the future of his media empire following his death. But Daddy dearest wants to shake things up, pushing for Lachlan to take the reins solo, ensuring the empire stays firmly Conservative.

James, the youngest sibling, left the family media empire in 2020, because of “disagreements” over its editorial content. Disagreements, we can assume, mean that he’s not exactly on board with Fox News’ pro-Trump agenda. In 2022, he welcomed Joe Biden to his home for a fundraiser. Earlier this month, he endorsed Kamala Harris by adding his name to a list of 88 US business leaders who have thrown their support behind the Democratic nominee in what they called an effort to preserve American democracy.  He has also privately described Fox’s prime talk shows as “poison” and said that the misinformation peddled on the network distorts the public discourse. A source familiar with the matter said James gathered detailed plans for taking Fox News away from pro-Trump propaganda and toward what he considered more reality-based news, as reported by CNN.

The prospect of a James Murdoch-led media empire is reportedly feared by many inside Fox News, with prominent hosts having talked openly about how they might reposition their brands to appeal to James. Liberal critics, who have long slammed Fox News as a misinformation machine, have been fantasising about a James-led revolution for years. In a 2020 NYT column, Maureen Dowd suggested that James could be the “anti-venom” to Fox’s poison.

No wonder Murdoch is doing his best to make sure his eldest son Lachlan, who has been described as “more Conservative” than his dad, remains in control of his empire. Along with James, sisters Elisabeth and Prudence oppose the change, and with all three in opposition, James could theoretically take control of the family business one day.

Could we really see a future where Murdoch-owned media outlets like the Sun become champions of progressive ideals and woke causes? It’s a nice thought, but perhaps about as likely as the Sun endorsing tofu over a full English breakfast.

Woke bashing of the week – Right-wing outrage over shrinking pints

Britons are famous for their love of pints. At 568ml, the much-loved pint is one of the largest standard beer servings globally, compared to Germany’s 500ml, the US pint at 473ml, and Australia’s 425ml schooner. From “bants with the lads” after work to enjoying a few whilst watching the football, this large measure has become a cornerstone of British culture. So, when an experiment surfaced that suggested reducing the size of beer servings to improve public health, a wave of panic was triggered among patriotic right-wingers.

The Daily Mail captured the reaction, or perhaps led it, with the dramatic headline: “Now woke scientists want to shrink your PINT – as they claim smaller servings of beer could reduce the UK’s alcohol consumption.” According to the report, “woke scientists from the University of Cambridge want to do away with the humble pint to curb the nation’s boozing.”

The Cambridge trial explored the idea that people tend to think in terms of portions, like “one beer,” “one cup of tea,” or “one piece of cake,” rather than specific quantities like millilitres or grams.

To test whether this approach would work for beer, researchers invited over 1,700 pubs, bars, and restaurants to take part in the study. The response was overwhelmingly negative, and despite being offered compensation for potential revenue loss, only 13 establishments agreed to participate.

Lead researcher Professor Theresa Marteau, director of the Behaviour and Health Research Unit at Cambridge, clarified the health benefits of drinking less. “Alcohol harms health, increasing the risk of over 200 different diseases and injuries including bowel, breast and liver cancers,” she told the Mail Online.

The study also found there were concerns for the pub industry, which is already struggling. A spokesperson for the British Beer and Pub Association warned that reducing alcohol consumption must be approached carefully, as the research showed that some customers compensated for smaller beer servings by purchasing stronger alcoholic drinks. None of the participating pubs permanently scrapped the pint.

Pubs’ wariness to abolish pints in favour of more continental measures might be understandable but why did the Mail label the researchers woke? Probably because the study was perceived as an attempt to influence consumer behaviour in-line with health-conscious or socially progressive ideals. Reducing portion sizes or changing how alcohol is served could be seen as part of a broader movement toward promoting healthier lifestyles or curbing excessive drinking, which some critics interpret as part of a “woke” agenda focused on controlling personal choices in the name of public health.

There was a similar reaction when news emerged that the government was considering banning smoking outside pubs. The pint-loving, cig-puffing Nigel Farage was so incensed, that he said he’d never step foot into a pub again if the policy became law – much to the delight of left-wing pubgoers.

Ultimately, the debate is less about beer or cigarettes and more about the clash between modern health interventions and deep-rooted British cultural traditions, providing a perfect opportunity for some classic woke bashing from the patriots.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

Comments are closed.