Lots more taxpayer funded politics 4

Matthew Sinclair Campaign

There have been a few stories recently highlighting that the taxpayer funded politics we uncovered in a report last year is still going strong:

Robert Halfon MP challenged the amount of taxpayers' money going to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, writing for ConservativeHome here. They get heavily involved in contentious political issues and aren't shy about their opinions. I set out the limitations of one political intervention they've made here.
Simon Clark, from the smokers' lobby group Forest, wrote on ConservativeHome about the amount of money going to anti-smoking campaigns who lobby the Government. I don't know about some of the groups his research looks at, like No Smoking Day, but ASH are an outright political campaign. They lobby for changes in the law and it is outrageous that taxpayers' money is being spent supporting private political agendas. Proposals like a ban on displaying cigarettes in shops will create significant costs for small businesses and there should be a fair debate over them, one side can't enjoy a massive advantage funded by taxpayers who may not agree with them.
The Local Government Association have received an award for being the "trade body of the year". There are loads of trade bodies for every kind of business from the Airport Operators Association to the National Association of Stable Staff. One of the key roles for those kinds of organisations is to represent their political interests, that's why the award was given out by Public Affairs News. So why exactly are local authorities allowed to use taxpayers' money to pay an organisation to represent their political interests? Lots of taxpayers don't agree with them when they defend against our attacks on bloated publicity budgets, middle management and high pay at councils, after all.

Taxpayer funded politics is unfair and undemocratic. It needs to end. It is vitally important that the Government follow up on the excellent move by Eric Pickles to stop councils and quangos in his department hiring lobbyists by stopping funding for political groups.

Matthew Sinclair

Matthew is Director of the TaxPayers' Alliance, author of Let Them Eat Carbon and editor of How to Cut Public Spending (and still win an election)

Follow @mjhsinclair

Steve Collins

So only the rich should be allowed to indulge in politics, should they Matthew?
Politicking is an expensive business. Lobbying more so.
So people on middle and lower incomes should be excluded from exerting any kind of political influence, leaving the field open to the wealthy and anonymous backers of organisations such as the TPA?
And how come the IFS are your new bogeyman? You were quite keen on them whilst they were bashing Labour. I did’nt hear any protestations of taxpayer funded politics whilst they were singing to your tune, Matthew.
Therein lies the hypocrisy of the TPA.
Andrew Smith

Steve you really are being silly.
Anyone should be able to spend their available cash as they wish. In the case of political parties we at least know that any amounts above the cost of a good night out are regulated.
Your ideas are anyway inconsistent; you seem to resent the fact that some people have more cash than you and me, but you want to put the power into the hands of the scumbags we have in Westminster, the power to spend OTHER PEOPLES’ money on their chosen basis for political parties.
The biggest downside of tax payer funded political parties is the additional power it gives to the leadership of those parties. It would have meant that Churchill would have been excluded in the 1930s; Disraeli in the previous century and whoever Blair didn’t like in the past 2 decades. Is that the sort of country you want to live in?
http://profile.typepad.com/daveatherton Dave Atherton

What sticks in my throat is that All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health has this on their website. This is a charity?
I have asked to appear in front of the committee and as of yet have had no reply.
“BENEFITS RECEIVED BY GROUP FROM SOURCES OUTSIDE PARLIAMENT
Action on Smoking and Health provides administrative support to the group, including sharing of information with members of the group, the occasional provision of briefing material at meetings, and occasional funding of receptions.”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/memi303.htm
Josh

I don’t this an issue of rich or poor or even class based for that matter but it’s an issue of transparency and accountability. Tax payers have a right to know where their money is being spent and how lobbying groups are making deals behind closed doors without any public say or previous knowledge. The biggest hypocrisy is that MPs claim to value democratic values and input from constituents, yet these groups are quite the contrary.