Is Sarah Palin's tea party over?

It will be if nobody turns up

Reports in the New York Times and on the Think Progress blog suggest that next month's National Tea Party Convention in Nashville is unravelling due to infighting among grass-roots groups. A number of activists are accusing the corporate Tea Party Nation of trying to profit from the convention -- and are particularly exercised over the $549-a-ticket cost of attending. (Check out the Tea Party Nation website: TICKETS TO THE BANQUET WITH GOV PALIN ARE STILL AVAILABLE!!!!! These guys are selling, hard.)

But now groups are actually pulling out. Philip Glass, national director of the National Precinct Alliance, issued a statement as he withdrew from the jamboree:

We are very concerned about the appearance of TPN profiteering and exploitation of the grass-roots movement. We were under the impression that TPN was a non-profit organisation like NPA, interested only in uniting and educating Tea Party activists on how to make a real difference in the political arena.

One of the possible reasons for the exorbitant cost of attending the convention is Sarah Palin's reported speaking fee of $100,000. This is yet to be confirmed, but if it's true it places her not that far off Tony Blair in the unbelievably-overpaid-speakers-who-really-know-the-meaning-of-personal-profit category. (Maybe Blair and Palin should team up -- as a sort of political double act -- where gullible audience members turn up and stuff their pockets with hard cash as they pirouette to the tune of "Money Money Money" on a vast golden stage.)

According to Think Progress, however, the Tea Party rebels are not going to let the so-called exploitation continue without a fight, and demonstrations are being planned outside the convention. It wouldn't exactly be a sign of great unity in the grass-roots movement:

"It would really look bad for tea parties to be out there protesting the Tea Party," said former Tea Party Nation member Anthony Shreeve.

And that's where you get to the beauty of the tea party situation, with official Tea Parties versus independent tea parties and the overriding sense that this is one elaborate tea party spinning wildly out of control. As for a tea party protest -- it sounds so genteel, so very decorous. Of course, it will be anything but . . . Beware the fury of a Tea Party scorned.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

 

 

 

Sophie Elmhirst is features editor of the New Statesman

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

There are risks as well as opportunities ahead for George Osborne

The Chancellor is in a tight spot, but expect his political wiles to be on full display, says Spencer Thompson.

The most significant fiscal event of this parliament will take place in late November, when the Chancellor presents the spending review setting out his plans for funding government departments over the next four years. This week, across Whitehall and up and down the country, ministers, lobbyists, advocacy groups and town halls are busily finalising their pitches ahead of Friday’s deadline for submissions to the review

It is difficult to overstate the challenge faced by the Chancellor. Under his current spending forecast and planned protections for the NHS, schools, defence and international aid spending, other areas of government will need to be cut by 16.4 per cent in real terms between 2015/16 and 2019/20. Focusing on services spending outside of protected areas, the cumulative cut will reach 26.5 per cent. Despite this, the Chancellor nonetheless has significant room for manoeuvre.

Firstly, under plans unveiled at the budget, the government intends to expand capital investment significantly in both 2018-19 and 2019-20. Over the last parliament capital spending was cut by around a quarter, but between now and 2019-20 it will grow by almost 20 per cent. How this growth in spending should be distributed across departments and between investment projects should be at the heart of the spending review.

In a paper published on Monday, we highlighted three urgent priorities for any additional capital spending: re-balancing transport investment away from London and the greater South East towards the North of England, a £2bn per year boost in public spending on housebuilding, and £1bn of extra investment per year in energy efficiency improvements for fuel-poor households.

Secondly, despite the tough fiscal environment, the Chancellor has the scope to fund a range of areas of policy in dire need of extra resources. These include social care, where rising costs at a time of falling resources are set to generate a severe funding squeeze for local government, 16-19 education, where many 6th-form and FE colleges are at risk of great financial difficulty, and funding a guaranteed paid job for young people in long-term unemployment. Our paper suggests a range of options for how to put these and other areas of policy on a sustainable funding footing.

There is a political angle to this as well. The Conservatives are keen to be seen as a party representing all working people, as shown by the "blue-collar Conservatism" agenda. In addition, the spending review offers the Conservative party the opportunity to return to ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ as a going concern.  If they are truly serious about being seen in this light, this should be reflected in a social investment agenda pursued through the spending review that promotes employment and secures a future for public services outside the NHS and schools.

This will come at a cost, however. In our paper, we show how the Chancellor could fund our package of proposed policies without increasing the pain on other areas of government, while remaining consistent with the government’s fiscal rules that require him to reach a surplus on overall government borrowing by 2019-20. We do not agree that the Government needs to reach a surplus in that year. But given this target wont be scrapped ahead of the spending review, we suggest that he should target a slightly lower surplus in 2019/20 of £7bn, with the deficit the year before being £2bn higher. In addition, we propose several revenue-raising measures in line with recent government tax policy that together would unlock an additional £5bn of resource for government departments.

Make no mistake, this will be a tough settlement for government departments and for public services. But the Chancellor does have a range of options open as he plans the upcoming spending review. Expect his reputation as a highly political Chancellor to be on full display.

Spencer Thompson is economic analyst at IPPR