The Taxpayers’ Alliance

I missed yesterday’s announcement that former Telegraph and ConHome writer, Jonathan Isaby had been appointed Political Director of the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

The Conservative party and the Taxpayers’ Alliance have always had a very close relationship. The appointment of Isaby as Political Director, apparently responsible for ‘building links with Ministers, MPs and MEPs’, means the partnership will become cosier still.

This appointment brings to mind an occasion in 2006 when I visited Conservative Central Office at its former residence in Victoria Street. During the meeting, our group were informed by Mark Clarke, who was then the pompous Chairman of Conservative Future, and Ian Oakley, at the time a Conservative candidate in Watford, that the newly formed Taxpayers’ Alliance were simply a front organisation set up by the Tories to attack Labour on tax.

The ‘brilliant idea’, so we were told, was to create a separate organisation that could attack Blair and Brown on economic issues, meaning the Labour party, BBC and print media couldn’t just dismiss the complaints as being irrelevant because they had come from the Conservatives.

I even recall mention of how the organisation was to be funded by existing donors to the Tory party and indirectly, the Conservative party itself. At the time I wrote a blog entry on my website making note of a few of these remarks on the TPA, and criticised Mark Clarke and Ian Oakley for being slimy and insincere. Not long afterwards Clarke contacted me by email to ask that I withdraw the article, not, so he said, due to the personal criticism, but for revealing matters about the workings of the TPA at a private meeting in CCHQ. Naturally I refused, and that was the end of the matter as far as I saw it. Furthermore, in subsequent years my observations on the disgraceful Ian Oakley were rather vindicated by events.

Thus, from its inception, the Taxpayers’ Alliance existed as a Conservative sanctioned group used to indirectly assault the Labour administration over their economic incompetence, high tax policies and runaway spending habits. Of course, now that Labour are no longer in office and the Tories (and Lib Dims) have replaced them, the situation has somewhat changed.

Click here to continue reading the article…

Offering False Hope

In recent weeks there has been an increasingly notable and concerted effort by the Conservatives to present their party as ‘eurosceptic’ and conservative when of course it actually isn’t.

At the beginning of the month it was conveniently revealed, on the wink and the nod, that Mr Steve Hilton, the Director of Strategy in Downing Street, and Oliver Letwin MP were privately in favour of EU withdrawal. Yet, as I noted in the case of John Redwood, until individuals make their alleged privately held views public, such speculation is not worth a cursory glance.

This morning it was the turn of the Daily Mail to play willing fool as it dutifully repeated a leak claiming Steve Hilton had suggested:

…the Government should abolish maternity leave and scrap all consumer rights laws to help kick start the economy. [He] also suggested that the Prime Minister should abolish all job centres and ignore all European labour rules.

This afternoon we had Tim Montgomerie recounting the thoughts of the great sage and former MP, Paul Goodman who once described Steve Hilton as ‘Edmund Burke beamed into contemporary San Francisco’. It must be that Mr Goodman was referring to another Edmund Burke, rather than the Whig MP who proved so prophetic in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, because as far as I can determine then there is little in the way of similarity between him and Hilton. To compare the two as equal is to do the memory of the father of conservatism a great dishonour.

If, as David Breaker recently wrote, Steve Hilton is ‘a traditionalist in disguise,’ then I’ll be the first to say that it is an incredibly good one. Hilton had me completely fooled. I, along with many others, honestly thought that he was just another liberal social democrat purporting to be a ‘conservative’. How silly of me.

I recant. Now I see Mr Hilton’s vision of the ‘Big Society’, his pursuit of an ethnicity-based candidate selection process for the Tories, and push to waste more money on the NHS as intrinsically conservative in nature. Truly he is the heir to Edmund Burke!

On a slightly more serious note, all these faux leaks tend to have one real aim, which is to deceive conservative-inclined members of the electorate into voting for the Conservative party. Once again, as Helen Szamuely highlighted, there is a common theme in all this:

…the presentation of the Conservative Party as the one and only truly eurosceptic political organization in this country, for which all ‘true’ eurosceptics should vote.

Much is suggested, without any supporting evidence, that a Conservative Government shod of its Lib Dim partners would be more conservative in its policies and approach. Yet, it is a false hope. A majority Conservative administration would differ little in its policies from the Coalition or indeed New Labour.

With ‘traditionalists’ like David Cameron and Steve Hilton at the helm, who move so freely between the metropolitan classes and the liberal elite, then the Conservative party are run by a group where conservativism is viewed as repellent and the leftist creeds of climate change, equality and diversity are worshiped. This is why Cameron and Hilton are as they are, and shall remain forever so.

Plurality Of The Media

Vince Cable, that well known beacon of intellectual capability and economic reason, has shoved his oar into the debate in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, telling the BBC that ‘having media moguls dominating the British media is deeply unhelpful’.

Presumably, in the case of News Corporation, we can read Vince’s ‘deeply unhelpful’ as ‘not fully part of my favoured liberal-left media consensus’. How dare individuals own large numbers of newspapers and influence the British political scene. Disgraceful. Anyway, our dear Business Secretary went on to add:

We have learned from the past that having media moguls dominating the British media is deeply unhelpful, not simply in terms of plurality but because of the wider impact on the political world.

What I want to see is a very clear set of unambiguous rules… about market shares, that we don’t have dominant players and a presumption against cross-ownership between press and television.

It isn’t simply an issue of Rupert Murdoch, there are other big media companies who could have the same influence in future and we’ve got to stop that happening.

This, you may remember, is the same man who ‘declared war’ on Rupert Murdoch and News International before the phone hacking scandal re-broke (remember it was old news until the Guardian and BBC dug it out again for their own ends), and was consequently stripped of his status over media policy on the BSkyB bid. This is not about phone hacking and never was – it is about ensuring the stranglehold grip of the liberal-left over the media establishment.

Of course, a fantastic way of ensuring greater plurality of media in Britain, which Saint Vince says he so desires, is the abolition or significant downsizing of our beloved national broadcaster. The BBC is a huge, sprawling organisation, owned by the state and funded by the television licence fee. What better way of opening up the media playing field than taking apart the BBC monopoly? But will Vince be seeking to break up their dominance over the broadcast and online media? Not likely.

Practice What You Preach

Greg Easterbrook of Reuters wrote a serious, if at times mildly amusing article about some proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy in the United States.

He noted that while rich individuals such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett declare that the wealthy should pay more in tax, then they do not practice what they preach. Indeed, he says, Barack Obama falls into that category, earning considerably more than the average American:

If Obama is in earnest about wanting increased taxes on the wealthy, then he should send the United States Treasury $182,998. That’s the difference between his Form 1040 Line 60 (“This is your total tax”) and what he would have owed at the higher rate (plus limits on itemized deductions) he himself advocates.

So why doesn’t he tax himself more? The Form 1040, after all, only stipulates the minimum tax an American must pay. More is always welcome. Obama should write a check to the United States Treasury for $182,998.

This very much reminds me of a local debate that I attended just before the General Election. During questions from the audience, a local Methodist Minister stood up and declared that he had earned £18,500 for the previous financial year. He was happy to declare this he said, and had even brought his documents so he could tell us exactly how much tax he had paid, which he then duly listed.

Later, when he eventually got to the point (funny isn’t it how during questions from the audience, more often than not, those who raise their hand seem to feel the incredible urge to give us their long winded opinion rather than actually ask a question?), he said that he was very happy to pay that tax and he got good value for it. He went on to say that he wished he paid even more tax and would be happy to pay it for such excellent public services, etc…

That was his opinion and while I do not share it I did not have a problem with him expressing it in the public forum. My immediate verbal suggestion to him was that he make a voluntary donation to the Treasury. No doubt it would be well spent on some worthy cause I told him. This he did not like.

Click here to continue reading the article…