Your tax pounds at work
This sounds like just the sort of thing our friends at the Tax Payers Alliance would be annoyed about - it's the local government Solace conference in Brighton next week, where council big cheeses will pay a minimum of £655 of taxpayers' money (that's not including accommodation) in order to be told how to do their jobs.
How will the TPA react to this public money being splurged on a nice little jolly by the sea to learn about 'creating trust through conflict' and a 'would you do that in public?' walking tour? Well, the big cheeses will have plenty of opportunity to ask them in person - because TPA campaign director Mark Wallace is one of the key speakers.
Can you spot what’s missing?
Here's a story about Prince Charles in today's Daily Mail:
Prince of Wales' funding from the taxpayer rose by almost a quarter last year, Clarence House accounts have revealed.
Cash from grant-in-aid and Government departments handed over to help Charles perform his duties jumped by 23.5 per cent to £3,033,000.
Strange though. Something appears to be missing. Where can it be?
His senior aide, Sir Michael Peat, said Charles had been mindful of the tough economic conditions.
'It's a recession and we have to say that we've looked at all costs very carefully,' he explained.
No, not there.
Sir Michael stressed that the increase was because the Prince was busier than ever.
'The Prince is entering his seventh decade. Many people would be slowing down but he seems to be going faster and faster.'
Nor there.
Odd.
Imagine if this story weren't about Prince Charles - let's imagine we were looking at a story about someone else in the public sector, for example a teacher, or anyone who works for a local council. Let's imagine it was about their wages, which would be considerably less than several million quid a year. Not only would their justification for their remuneration not come at the top of the story, but someone else would be sticking their oar in.
Yes, the Tax Payers' Alliance. They're incredibly vocal about every other piece of public expenditure, making sure they make it clear how awful it is. So why not this one? Why did no-one think to give them a bell? Or maybe they did... but the rent-a-quote weren't forthcoming on this particular occasion? Of course, with their lack of transparency, it's hard to know where they stand on things like a taxpayer-funded monarchy. If they were in favour, for example, they'd be sailing against the wind as far as Mail readers are concerned. Check out these comments:
I'm not sure if that's just kite-flying to try and provoke their readers into defending Charles, or whether that's what Mailies really think of the monarchy. Who knows? All I do know is that the TPA are incredibly silent on this subject, whereas they're normally flying out of the traps. It's refreshing, of course, to see a story about public expenditure without them being in it, and it's a welcome move if it means they're never again to be rung up by Mail journalists; but I don't think that's quite the case. So what's the difference between ordinary people who work for the public sector and Prince Charles - why does he escape the TPA's wrath?
Transparency and the TPA
Look, I know it's easy. It's the easiest thing in the world. You're doing a story about the public sector, you need someone to be able to say "Wuuuuuuurgh, isn't it awful, our tax pounds are being wasted by this" and you're five minutes away from deadline. Sure, a phone call to the Tax Payers Alliance might seem like the most sensible thing in the world. You know they're going to say whatever you want them to say. You know they're pretty much going to complain about public expenditure on anything ever, whether it's justified or not. Sure, it's a piece of piss story.
It's the same with broadcasters. You need someone to put the point of view that spending money on things is bad, if that money has come from the public taxes at some stage. It's a no-brainer, isn't it? Get on the blower to the TPA and they'll have someone droning away at you on radio or TV within seconds, no matter what the subject - they'll always have someone ready and waiting to be called into action to complain about taxation. Just send up the bat-signal and they'll get racing into action. Problem solved!
But do you know who you're dealing with? How transparent are the Tax Payers Alliance? They've become more and more popular in the media, thanks to the fact they're the go-to guys for a hack in a hurry who needs some derogatory quotes about the public sector spending money on things. But are they as transparent as they'd like the public sector to be? And if they aren't, why not? What possible reason might there be for them to be so coy about where their money comes from - particularly when their whole reason for existing is to complain about where money comes from?
Recently the TPA have been frothing at the mouth over MPs' expenses, particularly the redacted edition.
After MPs themselves have been allowed to go through all their own claims "redacting" information, there are some glaring gaps in what the public are being told. It turns out that "redacting" is a technical term for "obscuring potentially embarassing information with a big black marker pen".
Sounds fair enough, doesn't it? But then you have to remember this:
It’s simply not true that all political organisations are secretive about their funding. Most declare their income and expenditure, and some give a break-down of income sources, including donors. The TPA does neither. It publishes abbreviated accounts which means income and expenditure are withheld. The last time it published full accounts was in 2006, when it recorded an income of £130,000. But the current organisation has ten full-time staff across two offices, which suggests either its income has jumped substantially or it is loaded with debt.
But we don't know for sure, because the TPA are very shy. Is it fair enough that journalists harvest quotes from the TPA about transparency and probity, while at the same time they're extremely shy about where their own money comes from? Sure, it's not taxpayers' money and they have no legal obligation to disclose it - but then again, why not? What on earth would be wrong with letting us all know who is funding the TPA and where that money is coming from?
After all, they appear on the BBC, the taxpayer-funded broadcaster, often enough. Shouldn't we as licence fee payers know where this pressure group, which gets hours and hours of coverage thanks to lazy journalists at the BBC, is coming from? Shouldn't we be told what its aims are and why it's complaining about tax, rather than just that it is?
The way the TPA gets presented by journalists is as if it's some kind of independent think-tank which just happens to be really concerned about taxpayers' money. Which might be true, who knows? But what if there was another agenda there? Which people are funding the TPA, and what are they hoping to get out of it? Surely it would be fair enough that we should be allowed to know that - or does transparency only work one way?
There's a story there for a journalist who really wants to find out - rather than just ringing the TPA up every time they 'need a quote' about how bad the public sector is.
How different is the Telegraph from the Mail?
Sometimes I get a bit hand-wringy about how I constantly look at the Mail - not because there's anything wrong with singling out those evil scumbags, you understand; rather, I'm worried it's getting a wee bit too easy. Surely a 'quality' newspaper like the Telegraph won't stoop to the levels of the Mail? Surely they will analyse something like the Budget in a cool and rational journalistic way? Surely they won't attempt a cack-handed portrayal of 'war on the middle class'?
Oh.
Budget 2008: Higher tax for 9 in 10 drivers
You mean to say things are going up in price? What kind of crazy alchemistic phenomenon is this? Why wasn't I informed of this witchcraft? Maybe we could think of a name for it, oh I don't know, 'inflation' seems an idea. Why on earth should road tax ever go up? Surely, despite the increased costs of everything else in the world - including public transport, rocketing up in price well above inflation - motorists should still be paying sixpence a year for the privilege of driving a car, and that should never change. What kind of fool wrote this, I wonder? A junior reporter? A work experience boy?
By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor
Quite. Deputy political editor, not deputy business editor. And political is exactly what he is.
The full scale of the clampdown on middle-class motorists has become clear after it emerged that nine in 10 cars will be affected by higher rates of tax under plans announced in the Budget.
Firstly, a 'clampdown' is not just taxing people a bit more. A 'clampdown' is when you're trying to impose restrictions on someone. And by their very nature, the middle class can afford to drive in the first place - paying more for it won't restrict them as such. So why use the word, if not to create a misleading impression that the government is trying to restrict behaviour? It's not. It's just raising revenue.
Analysis shows that over the next two years, millions of motorists will face soaring bills
Bills? It's one bill a year.
as road tax on some
Some, not all. To give the impression that these 'some' represent the majority.
family models doubles.
Family models. Are these family models like the Mercedes used to illustrate 'family cars' in the Graph the other day? I imagine for a lot of Telegraph readers, that is the family motor, but please, most people can afford nothing like that.
The Treasury will net more than £1billion
Compared to what? What kind of increase is it? Not mentioned. Because a billion sounds bigger when it's not compared to a few hundred million.
from the tax grab
Tax grab! As opposed to 'tax', which is what it is. Like 'land grab', the implication is that the Treasury are taking something that isn't rightfully theirs. This is the language of George W Bush, the nonsensical 'it's your money' bullshit with which he justified scrapping inheritance tax, giving more to the rich by taking it from the poor.
And can I see your working on this 'analyis'? Ooh no, secret. Shhh.
The middle classes
Like the Mail, pluralising them. Which middle classes are these?
already face above-inflation increases on their energy bills, grocery shopping and mortgage costs
And it's this that's key. Let's look at this again. Above-inflation rises in mortgage costs...? Well like duh, how do you think banks make money? This is the deputy political editor of a national newspaper saying this as if it's something unusual. What the hell is he doing, if not to create a misleading impression? I can't believe he's ignorant.
But yes, energy bills are soaring, thanks to world prices and privatisation, the latter of which happened under a Tory government and has not been reversed under New Labour, despite a one-off punitive 'windfall tax'. Is the Telegraph urging renationalisation? I fancy not. But it is a useful stick to beat Labour with - bills are going up. Well yes, but that's due to energy prices worldwide going up, and exacerbated by privatisation.
And yes, that grocery shopping bill from M&S or Waitrose is a few pennies more for the poor lambs in the middle class(es). Yes, how we must shed a tear from them, as opposed to people in poverty, who are hit even harder. Well world food prices are rising. The poor are starving, thanks to the 'invisible hand' of the market, which is killing thousands and thousands.
Millions of people have little choice but to drive to work or school because of the poor state of public transport
And the huge cost, let's not forget the huge cost. For many, it's cheaper to drive, because public transport goes up by 10 per cent every year, whereas driving doesn't. But is this Telegraph chappie really saying a huge investment in public transport is the answer? Wouldn't we have to be - gasp - taxed for that? So what is he saying? Public transport is rubbish, so we have to drive, so please make it cheaper for those who can afford a car, leaving those too poor to afford one to be cut adrift with increasingly terrible public transport? Again, I reiterate: deputy political editor.
Pressure was rising on Alistair Darling, the chancellor, amid claims that the Treasury rushed through the new road tax system without analysing the implications.
Textbook Mail territory here - 'pressure' and 'claims' where we can't quite find evidence, yet we want to steer the reader towards a certain conclusion. So what is this writer's real problem? With tax? With poor public transport? With rising bills? Or with the Labour party not being quite as competent as a Tory government would be at doing the administration of extremely similar policies? Is this article out of genuine concern for the poor impoverished middle class(es), who supposedly suffer so much more than the poor? Or is it simply to try and portray Labour as incompetent compared to the Tories? Is it just point-scoring?
Mr Darling is already struggling to restore his political reputation
How? Who says?
after having to undo hasty changes he proposed to capital gains tax and the taxation of non-domiciles.
Tory ideas, supposedly. See, if only they'd been in charge...
A Labour insider
Oh here we go... a senior Labour insider? A real person? Or a very convenient Labour source saying exactly what Tories would like to hear?
admitted that of the two main budget measures - alcohol and motoring - the assault on drivers could prove to be the most damaging.
Did he now. He talked about an assault on drivers, did he. Not much of a bloody Labour figure, is he? Why, only a completely made up person could come up with more damaging things to say about his own party.
He said: "When you start clobbering families for driving a run-of-the-mill car
Clobbering? Really?
or people carrier then people will start to notice and that will cause us difficulties."
Blimey. No wonder this chap wants to stay anonymous!
Aha, here we go with the astroturf pressure group who can be relied upon to give the most anti-government, anti-taxation quote and analysis possible. Nice balanced article then:
The research, by the tax payers' alliance...
I switch off when I see the words tax payers' alliance, or Christian Voice, or MigrationWatch. Meaningless groups who represent no-one, yet claim to represent everyone, the mythical 'silent majority', that brilliant concoction that is as equally untrue but hard-to-disprove-due-to-not-existing as the PC Brigade.
Next we move on to a list of 'family cars' which are eligible for big tax rises. See if you can spot what's going on here.
Vauxhall Astra 2.0i 16v
Saab 93 MY2008
Ford Focus 1.6 Duratec
Citroen Xsara Picasso
Astra: £19000
Saab: £19-35000
Ford: £15000 minimum
Citroen: £11000
Are the Astra and the Saab really 'family cars'? Why did the TPA choose cars with such enormous fuck-off engines, if not to try and ramp up the figures? The whole point of the exercise - correct me if I'm wrong - was to try and get people to think about their car choices. And I think it's blindingly stupid to say no-one was warned. These changes have been taking place for years. No use pretending they haven't. Diesels and low emission cars are available - and much cheaper cars than the ones chosen by the TPA as well. But that wouldn't make the figures look quite so outlandish, would it?
Matthew Elliott of the TPA said: "Alistair Darling may have claimed high moral motives but this is just a grubby tax grab..."
So that's where the 'tax grab' idea came from: a totally unrepresentative pressure group that hates being taxed. And the deputy political editor of the Telegraph used it verbatim.
So there's the high standards of the Telegraph. So very much different from the Mail? I really don't think so. There's the same anti-Labour approach to everything, the same 'tax is theft' mentality of the rich, the same intent to claim that they're standing up for the 'middle class(es)', the same slavish devotion to nonsensical astroturf pressure groups. Just because it's in the Telegraph, it doesn't make bad journalism suddenly good.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Workbrain
- So Solid Wiki fun
- Quentin Letts killed by a woodchipper
- I just sent Robin round
- Kim Jong Ill
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Maxine on Workbrain
- Sirenofbrixton on Workbrain
- Katie on Workbrain
- bernard on Workbrain
- Darren on Workbrain
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.