The tame TaxPayers' Alliance

When will the TPA go after the Conservatives' use of public patronage for party political purposes?

By Christopher Montgomery Published 28 February 2011 13:48

It's good to learn from Dan Hodges that the Yes to AV campaign is even worse than the TPA Team B, aka the No to AV, effort is. But here's a quick question for the original TaxPayer's Alliance, specifically its director, Matthew Sinclair.

You'll know what the grumbling has always been about the TPA. That you were far too tame in opposition. That, for all you moaned in private about Osborne's shadow treasury team being intellectually timid yet rigidly controlling, you, in the last parliament, did far too often pull your punches in response to demands from Matt Hancock and co to keep quiet.

Meaner people than me did, at the time, wonder whether TPA alumni -- having fallen for the idea that David Cameron would actually win an election against Gordon Brown -- were rather too dazzled by the prospect of SPADships (and other plums of patronage). And that, as a result, not everyone in the TPA was fully committed to being quite as offensive as your name might have had unrepentant Thatcherites hope you'd be. That is, to my mind, completely unfair. So what that we now have a government where a Conservative Chancellor bashes bankers and boasts about how much protection money he's squeezing out of them? These pre-emptive, long-term, trouble-storing-up rhetorical surrenders on behalf of the party leadership are hardly your fault. You've been fighting the good fight, even if it's not always been as awkward and unhelpful a fight as it might have been on every occasion. But here's the thing -- that quick question -- are you following the jobs?

You're very good at tracking waste in local government, in highlighting the absurd, uncompetitive salaries chief executives and other functionaries award themselves in the shadows, but are you being as vigilant at the national level? For as we both know, the consequence of Cameron having managed to find one thing he won't flip-flop on -- the number of those precious SPADships being reduced, with even fewer on offer to Tory flacks now that the Liberals have to get their cut too -- is that ways round this are being found. Blatantly political appointments are being made to supposedly neutral civil service jobs. Ministerial private offices are littered with CCHQ lags, and other think tank hangers-on, who haven't been able to get SPADed up, and as yet you have let this slip you by.

So there it is: just let me know that your FoI requests are, even now, working their way through the system to see just who has been given public patronage for party political purposes. It's an easy enough thing to do: we both know who the limited cast of characters involved are. So do be sure to email me when you have this latest piece of TPA research ready to go. It'll make for fun reading when you name names. (Oh, and natch, I'm taking it as read that the non-party TPA opposes ministers bunging apolitical taxpayer-funded political positions to political stooges, even when those stooges are chums).

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Matthew Sinclair

More from Christopher Montgomery

23 comments

Mon, 2011-02-28 19:23 — matthew fox (not verified)

@ Matthew Sinclair

Please understand the author dresses like he is living in the 1980's and therefore is still thinking like it is the 1980's.

Fri, 2011-03-25 12:41 — Clem the Gem

The Tax Avoiders Alliance have no room to carp - they already have one tame media outlet to themselves in London, "City AM".
And plenty of Tax Avoiders in the Cabinet, apparently...
http://clemthegem.wordpress.com

Mon, 2011-02-28 22:48 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

What was that the TLA guard dog whispered about the bankers' bonuses? We couldn't quite hear. Bark LOUDER!
VAT the consumer forks out for. Employers', sorry employment tax, who pays?

Bothered and Bewildered

Tue, 2011-03-08 12:39 — Denny (not verified)

I can't remember the last time I got a receipt that didn't have VAT shown as a separate figure - I assumed it was a legal requirement.

Fri, 2011-03-04 21:12 — mcquade

"Lazy articles like this are infuriating."

You can only but scoff at this remark by Sinclair, former director of an organisation infamous for its shoddy, sloppy research, selective and skewed use of stats for the purposes of confirmation bias, and scare-mongering press statements. The TPA, so righteous when exposing others, squealing like a pig when caught with its nose in the trough.

Sun, 2011-05-01 12:15 — Tex Mame (not verified)

Are the Tax Avoiders Alliance still claiming tax relief on donations used to fund political research?

Fri, 2011-03-04 21:17 — mcquade

"Headteachers need to be given more power to run their schools and should be accountable to parents"

They already are, via the board of governors on which parents sit and schools parents associations.

Tue, 2011-03-01 04:00 — Reginald-Fah-fah

Montgomery my good man!

Starting on page 25, in last week's NewStatemen about 'the tax haven in the heart of Britain' I had a jolly good old read of this marvellous article!

@ Matthew Sinclair

Mr Sinclair be a good sport and write a comment. It could be fun!

Fri, 2011-03-04 10:37 — thinkov

the tpa isn't goping to attack the party it defends-bleedin obvious innit

Tue, 2011-03-01 07:52 — Luddite (not verified)

Let's start with state education, many parents are very concerned when they see their children being taught by a series of different supply teachers, rather than enjoying a stable learning environment with a regular teacher. At the same time, we have just seen a decade in which Britain has spent more and more on education but slid down international league tables for performance. Taxpayers deserve to get better value the key to improving schools isn’t just throwing more money at them, but improving how they are managed. Headteachers need to be given more power to run their schools and should be accountable to parents, not bureaucrats in Whitehall. Thats not just state education but equally applies to health-care, transport and welfare. Our taxes are still being squandered.

Tue, 2011-03-01 21:45 — Reginald-Fah-fah

@ Tory Boy,

Don't call youreselve a Tory when you don't believe in the old tax planning.

I'm a top Tory and fully support tax planning for big business!

Tue, 2011-05-24 12:48 — Herbert (not verified)

matthew fox: 'Please understand the author dresses like he is living in the 1980's and therefore is still thinking like it is the 1980's.'

That's the kind of incisive comment I come here for (or do I mean hang around in pubs with twerps for?)

Tue, 2011-03-01 12:03 — Puggly

Doubt the TPA will have a go at James Frayne's blatantly political appointment, what with his being a former mouthpiece for them.

Sun, 2011-03-06 20:19 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Does the TPA do indirect tax; stealth tax as it is now-a-days called?
VAT, ciggie and fuel tax amongst others? No, not wealth tax or inheritance tax - not within your purview.
No, not avoidance or evasion of tax -direct or indirect. Corporation tax. Nah!
Should be quite straight-forward. Indirect taxes. The equality taxes where everybody pays the same.
Why doesn't the UK follow the EU sales procedure whereby the VAT amount is shown on the receipt? Too transparent?
Indirect and Direct Taxpayer

Sun, 2011-04-24 19:54 — Benedict (not verified)

Christopher Montgomery's last posting was in February and now it's nearly May. Why does he get a higher billing than more industrious bloggers?

Mon, 2011-02-28 14:23 — Matthew Sinclair (not verified)

Lazy articles like this are infuriating. I would be happy to write a reply if someone from the New Statesman would like to get in touch and offer a space on The Staggers or similar to do so. Not sure the topic is really of interest to readers on our site.

Thu, 2011-06-16 14:08 — Benedict (not verified)

Christopher Montgomery's just disappeared from the list of bloggers. Why doesn't that surprise me?

Fri, 2011-06-10 23:38 — Where where (not verified)

Where has Christopher went to? 1st post 20th January, last 28th February. Now June 10th. Is he still here? If not remove from the blogs! A shame if he has, very interesting idea to have a Tory blogger on NS

Thu, 2011-04-07 00:46 — Dubs (not verified)

Blatantly political appointments to the civil service? Corks! Pass the smelling salts. I'm so flippin' shocked its not true. Those New Labour gents would never have dreamed of such a thing. That nice Mr. Campbell wouldn't have heard of it...... grow up you tit.