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
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.