The Institute for Economic Affairs is supposedly a charity. I have long wondered how. With little regard for democracy; much for tax havens and an irrational attachment to supposed ‘free markets' as the answer to all questions that might ever be posed, its objectivity has always been open to question.
The fact that I have met, and crossed verbal swords with its director, Mark Littlewood, on many occasions has never changed my opinion of the organisation and its lack of balance. Never once have I heard him give the sort of answer that I often do that markets play an immensely valuable role when the right conditions are met, as does the state when other conditions prevail and that the matter to be decided upon is when each is appropriate. There has only ever been one solution in his mind: the market is the only thing he promotes. That is not what might be expected of a charity.
In that case the enquiries now being raised into its activities are especially welcome. And as one of the organisations that has undoubtedly promoted Brexit, as opposed to comment upon it, this is an organisation whose activities need as much attention focussed on them as do those of others undertaking such activity, such as the ERG.
I absolutely defend the right of the IEA to hold its opinions. But I question their modus operandi. At the very least, a lot more transparency is required of it. And maybe rather more, but that is for others to determine.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Defend their right? As a charity?
No, I defend their right to disagree with just about everything I think appropriate
But it’s clear I am questioning their right o do so as a charity
That the various right-wing ‘think tanks’ play the system by claiming charitable status to dodge taxes tells you all you need to know about their values. That’s if their complete lack of transparency about funding wasn’t enough of a clue.
I don’t doubt matters would be different if their aims were left-leaning in nature, but the establishment is happy to let them carry on misusing charitable status just as long as they benefit the wealthy. You’ll not see one word of criticism of them in the right-wing press.
On the other hand, I noticed a headline on the cover of (I think) the Mail the other day launching an attack on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for funding a Irish political group with links to terrorists (don’t they all?). At the time, I thought, “And so it begins…”
I’ve looked at some of the IEA’s views and some are hard to disagree with. Their director was for Scottish Independence in the 2014 campaign for example. But they are unashamedly free trade pro-markets and neoliberal. With their mix of young and old, religious and non-religious, men and women, and british and foreign-borns working for them, they are shoving a spade in the face of those who think diversity, even quotas, are a good thing. You could have an all-white, all middle-aged think tank and have more intellectual diversity than the IEA.
Sorry – they’re registered as a charity!!!?
I thought that charities tried to help people?
Oh right – sorry – they DO help people – the rich, the financial sector and any Neo-liberal who believes that the State is an unproductive part of the economy and that the commons is there to be appropriated for private profit.
I believe the Rowntree Foundation is a registered charity which has been accused of donating to an Irish Republican group. I believe they also help fund your work – which of these is a bigger betrayal of their charitable status?
I was funded by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust
Not the same thing at all
I believe the MSM have intentionally not explained the differences – http://www.josephrowntree.org.uk. Rowntree’s name also appears on a range of sugar confectionary, albeit Nestlé doesn’t enjoy charitable status per se, but off-shore tax advantages.
It was the JRCT which made the donations that caused the media storm: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/joseph-rowntree-charitable-trust-asked-to-explain-funding-after-times-reports-terror-link.html
JRF says: https://www.jrf.org.uk/press/statement-joseph-rowntree-charitable-trust-jrct-media-reports
Public/private schools also enjoy charitable status – to the extent of £700 million pounds (Guardian) – and their charitable work extends to helping the poor dears from wealthy, rich backgrounds maintain their position at the top of society who might otherwise slip off their perches.
I despair
I know the JRCT, a bit
It is a Quaker charity
It takes risk to build peace
That’s what Quakers do
How else do you build reconciliation in an attempt to overcome past differences?
And the recipient was / is charitable according to HMRC
This is just scandal mongering by the ill informed fighting back about the IEA
Yes, it’s going after the soft targets again. Why aren’t they going after the Tories’ dirty money?
The IEA are also shrills for the sugar industry trying to suggest – when all evidence shows ‘you can’t outrun a bad diet’ – that a decline in physical activity is the reason for any obesity epidemic. They seem likely to have received monies from Tate&Lyle and CocaCola
https://insulinresistance.org/index.php/jir/article/view/39/112
They’ve clearly never heard of William Hogarth because apparently – no thinking required – reduced sugar, alcohol and tobacco are responsible for increasing misery in society!
The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd is I believe still ….a non charitable limited company which makes grants for political campaigns or lobbying purposes that are ineligible for charitable funding…that is what it currently says and is presumably the same body that has made small grants to groups in the Channel Islands promoting change – where it is especially difficult to fund such activities.
There was some reforming of the various charitable Rowntree arms when Nestle obtained the chocolate business I seem to recall
The JRRT is not charitable
The JRF and JRCT are charitable
I agree that the IEA should not be a charity. What about the New Economics Foundation and the Child Poverty Action group – both registered charities and both blatantly pushing a political agenda. Shouldn’t they lose their charitable status as well?
The relief of poverty is a charitable objective
NEF does not promoter a single agenda, or politics, that I am aware of. What is its political aim?
Charities are allowed to undertake some political activity without harming their charitable status:
“Political activity might include some or all of:
raising public support for (such) a change
seeking to influence political parties or independent candidates, decision-makers, politicians or public servants on the charity’s position in various ways in support of the desired change; and responding to consultations carried out by political parties”
According to their website they are an educational charity, which is a type of charitable object.
Maybe all this should be allowed, maybe not. But these are the rules they’re operating under.
The question is has the IEA crossed a line?
Many of us know that line well – I do
It is hard t0o think that they have not crossed it
Richard,
Off topic, but I didn’t know where to write this and I am particularly interested in your opinion. The FCA website contains the regulator’s statement on the matter of the RBS-GRG investigation. Here is the opening comment attributed to Andrew Bailey, CEO of the FCA. It requires no more to be said:
“‘Given the serious concerns that were identified in the independent review it was only right that we launched a comprehensive and forensic investigation to see if there was any action that could be taken against senior management or RBS. It is important to recognise that the business of GRG was largely unregulated and the FCA’s powers to take action in such circumstances, even where the mistreatment of customers has been identified and accepted, are very limited. Taking action was therefore always going to be difficult and challenging but after carefully considering all the evidence we have concluded that our powers to discipline for misconduct do not apply and that an action in relation to senior management for lack of fitness and propriety would not have reasonable prospects of success.”
Parhaps you could explain to me: precisely what is the point of the FCA? We have a Regulator for the non-regulation of commercial banking. They had to conduct a forensic investigation to discover that “the business of GRG was largely unregulated and the FCA’s powers to take action …. even where the mistreatment of customers has been identified and accepted, are very limited”; effectively zero, but presuambly they are too embarrassed to write the words. This is far past absurd. Mony Python was less daft; but this isn’t funny. The only word for this I can find is – despicable. Do not forget, this is not the first attempt of Britain to privide a financial sector regulator; the first embarrassment was the FSA; now fortunately extinct. I trust the FCA will soon go the same way.
Does the Prudential Regulation Authority have nothing to say? Presumably they are too, ehh, prudent to say. Let me guess; nuthin’ to do with me Guv. It is nothing to do with anyone. Britain today, in a nutshell.
Too much regulation has been designed by those who are regulated to make sure that no effective regulation takes place. The explanation that is easy to find: politicians vacated the space where hard thinking was required to ensure that there will was put into effect. We can clearly see the result. It is exploitative abuse.
Well: https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/07/31/channel-island-banks-fund-iea-report-defending-tax-havens/
Now a blog, thanks
Occasionally, there is some good work done in the broadcast media…. https://news.sky.com/story/amp/long-read-governments-no-deal-brexit-plans-lost-on-m20-motorway-11454929