-
-
Because they pretend to be a grass-roots organisation raising concerns by ordinary tax payers ... even their name suggests that they are an official body of allied taxpayers! They're not ... there's no way for a normal person to join and have any say in their position.
-
Plenty of thinktanks have names that give the impression they are official bodies or grassroots. But you only seem to be bothered by the ones that don’t share your views.
-
Really? Which ones (have a guess at the thinktanks I'm more supportive of)? All of the ones I have concerns about are in the lower half of this transparency table.pic.twitter.com/vZNouUZ0M8
-
Maybe "my views" are that transparency is key to being able to make an informed decision about what representatives of all these organisations say when given airtime on news and politics programmes.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
If it doesn’t matter who funds the TPA, why not disclose the information freely? Serious question.
-
They say the reason they don’t disclose is because of the harassment they would receive as a result. Given the harassment of Chloe, I think that may be a fair point.
-
We'll never know as they will never reveal. To be frank if we assumed all non-transparent "think-tanks" on left, right and centre were funded by bad actors we would not go far wrong.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Because they appear to have the ear of government?
-
Surely what matters most is whether the TPA (or any organisation) is saying something worthwhile or not?
-
So it doesn't matter who funds the message at all? I think Arron Banks is currently finding out that isn't always true.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Asked the "journalist".
-
Yes, journalists (and “journalists”) ask questions
-
But the question in this instance that you are posing about the TPA is "why should we ask questions about it?." Then in answer to me you say yes "journalists" should ask questions.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
"A medical researcher writes an article, saying: to treat this disease, you should prescribe this drug. It turns out that the medical researcher makes 80 percent of personal income from manufacturer of this drug." THAT is why you should care about where the funds are coming from
-
I’m not saying that I do or don’t care. I’m asking why it matters. The critics don’t seem to have the same concerns about the funding of organisations that share their own views.
-
I just told you why it matters, because it influences the research in favour of the views of the organisation supplying the funding. Wouldn't you rather that the research and articles produced by a "non-partisan" organisation were funded by an equally "non-partisan" sponsor?
-
What do you mean by partisan? It's important because some would argue that ostensibly 'non-partisan organisations' and sponsors are also influenced by those 'who fund them' or who will be responsible for deciding about their continued access to funds. (Not a reductio ad absurdum)
-
I used the word because that's the word that they themselves use on their website: "TaxPayers' Alliance | Britain's non-partisan, grassroots campaign for lower taxes and better government" - if you have issue with the usage, take it up with them, it's their claim. :)
-
Their meaning is clear: they do not align with any political party, but are guided by two policy objectives of 'lower taxes and better government'. That makes sense and as from their point of view, they can say they are not partisan. But how do you use the concept partisan?
-
"they do not align with any political party" - what if it turns out they were funded by the Conservative party? Are they still "non-partisan" then?
-
Consider that now we are raising an issue about 'some' sponsors of campaign groups -- not about the motives of campaign groups. The motives are outlined in their objectives and their actions, surely, should be judged according to them, not their sponsors. Don't you think?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
