Goldsmith and Miller: Dancing to the same tune

Zac Goldsmith and David Miller

A defensive David Miller and Claire Robinson reply to SpinWatchWatch’s article How Zac Goldsmith bought the Green Movement on Forth today.

Robinson and Miller cry out ‘we are not soft on the Tory party’ – which no-one said they were: the article is clear, they are soft on the Tory candidate for Richmond Park, Zac Goldsmith.

No-one who reads the belated entry on Goldsmith in SpinWatch could have any doubt – this is a piece of pro-Goldsmith spin. Just compare the Goldsmith SpinWatch eulogy with any other SpinWatch page (like that other Tory tax exile millionaire Lord Ashcroft’s for example). Goldsmith is lauded as a champion of the fight against Labour’s pro-corporate stance, while Ashcroft is ‘tenure was marked by a number of controversies’, such as his failure to pay tax. Meanwhile, Goldsmith is given four paragraphs to obfuscate the charge that he avoided paying tax – even though it is clear that he did.

In fact SpinWatch and Zac Goldsmith share so many eccentric preoccupations that it is fair to say that they are dancing to the same tune.

  • Like Goldsmith (Constant Economy, p 47), SpinWatch thinks that fluoride in drinking water is evidence of chemical industry lobbying.
  • Like Goldsmith, SpinWatch continues to promote the case against the MMR vaccine, long after everyone else has accepted that it was a fraud.
  • Miller and Robinson, like Goldsmith, are veterans of the campaign against Genetic Modification, who, like those Japanese soldiers who could not believe the war was over, carry on arguing that GM will disrupt the human genome.
  • SpinWatch attacks the National Farmers’ Union and promotes the unheard of alternative FARM – which is a small farmers’ lobby run by Zac Goldsmith.
  • And most pointed of all weird preoccupations, Goldsmith shares SpinWatch’s fear of the secret influence of the imaginary ‘LM Network’ – ‘a bizarre political network that began life as the ultra-left wing Revolutionary Communist Party’ (Constant Economy, p 57). Articles written by Goldsmith for the Ecologist, and Robinson for SpinWatch, repeat the exact same formula of the ‘LM Network’ and its hidden influence.

Squirming in embarrassment, Robinson and Miller protest that Robinson was only paid for a few articles by Goldsmith. But Claire Robinson did not just write one or two articles for the Ecologist, she wrote scores – and so did another SpinWatch editor, Jonathan Matthews in fact many of the articles on SpinWatch and Goldsmith’s Ecologist are the same article.

Not only have SpinWatch and Zac Goldsmith been sharing staff for the last ten years, he has, by Miller’s own admission, financed all three outlets: SpinWatch, NuclearWatch and GMWatch. Even today, Goldsmith’s Isvara Foundation is SpinWatch’s largest donor – though Miller tries to deny it. As we wrote in the original article, the reason that SpinWatch sucks up to Zac Goldsmith is that they are taking his money. And the reason that Goldsmith has pays them is that they are all dancing to the same tune – a shared fear of modern technology that is dressed up as a critique of corporate funding.

Of course, there is one corporation funding SpinWatch that they have no problems with, and that is Zac Goldsmith’s.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s