Bob Shrum is the only one of the Smith Institute's Fellows to be paid. And he doesn't come cheaply. But it slightly beggars belief that an opinion pollster is paid to give his advice on the UK economy. The Smith Institute's charity trust deed says their reason for existing is to promote research into the UK economy. I just wonder if the Smith Institute is being used by Gordon Brown to pay for Shrum's polling services to provide a counterbalance to Philip Gould. I suppose we'll never know, but an on the record denial might alleviate some concerns. And also, shouldn't they make clear how much he is being paid and what for?
Personally I am very happy if Shrum is indeed advising Brown. In the five US presidential campaigns he has been involved in Shrum has been on the losing team on each occasion. Long may that track record continue!
28 comments:
Boom ! Boom !
Have you thought of doing a bit of 'stand-up' at Doughty Street. You know 11 O'clock, people coming home from the pub, captive audience ??
Or since Beeb have 'HIGNFY' and R4 have the News Quiz, surely you could rustle something up for Friday nights?
Give you an excuse to be in the smoke for the start of the weekend!
Guido territory abit isn`t it ? No harm in that though
The old 1 2 eh , Just remember with pc dave at helm and the legacy politians the cons have lost
and before you slate me , I am a con ,still remember the gentleman from Hoylake
"And he doesn't come cheaply."
More expensive than Steve Hilton?(whose girlfriend just happens to be a Policy Exchange trustee like yourself Mr Dale...)
Still that £2m taxpayer cash-for-conference *cough* subsidy from Birmingham Council should cover the bill.
New/Blue. It makes no difference.
...and so the astro-turfing begins, recrimination is always the first defence of the weak "chad".
Brown's arrogance epitomises the "machine politician's contempt for democracy" to borrow a quote. That includes those who are Blue, new, or new new labour.
1:51 PM Why is it astro-turfing when people can't agree ,dont you think you think there is enough slime around , and if Iain doesnt like my comment ,Iain can delete it
Ah yes, Chad, UKIP troll extroardinaire. A conservative thinktank with one of its trustees (not paid) a conservative who is girlfriend of prominent conservative, Steve Hilton, is obviously exactly the same as possible illegal payments to make party political attacks on David Cameron.
Just so it's clear, to future Chad-like posters, conservative-minded thinktanks are going to employ conservative thinkers, who in all likelihood are Conservative members/MPs/girlfriends of Conservative strategists. Charities are allowed to have whatever goals they like, including being conservative (not Conservative), they just mustn't endorse/attack parties (although they can endorse the policies of those parties).
So once again for the moronic fringe:
* paying people to attack David Cameron is NOT allowed under charities rules
* employing Conservative/Labour MPs/strategists to work on policy, such as research into school vouchers, IS entirely permissible, regardless of whether that policy is the policy of a particular party, as long as they don't endorse/attack any parties
So until you have something more shocking than "right-wing thinktank employs leading right-wingers to produce its policy reports" (which is not shocking at all, and is what every thinktank does), kindly shut up, as your deliberate smokescreen that this issue is about what party the thinkers in a thinktank are associated with is deliberate obfuscation. Everybody knows there are left-wing/right-wing policy groups/thinktanks, and that these employ conservative/socialist thinkers to come up with policy reports such as "stop all benefits" or "increase child tax credits or whatever". This is non-controversial. What is controversial is potential cash for access, and party political attacks on David Cameron; if you have any evidence that this is occurring with any other group than the Sith, please speak up - otherwise shut your mouth.
How about hosting meetings to help the Tory Party? I attended the "Case for Change" meeting in July 2005 that was solely focussed on what was needed to revive the Tory Party?
2:06 PM mr know all ,even ukip wont get in , I am yes an oldie I guess what I can use a computer we oldies maybe just part of the public, but think we are also part of this blog , stop trying to show off using big words in front of your mates,
2:06 PM mr know all ,even ukip wont get in , I am yes an oldie I guess what I can use a computer we oldies maybe just part of the public, but think we are also part of this blog , stop trying to show off using big words in front of your mates,
chad at 2.09 pm
If you want to turn yourself in, Charity Commission Direct is on 0845 3000 218
ello ello I see that charred nob is around.
What is he doing in a party of the nearly dead?
A quick fact-check, Iain.
Wikipedia says
"Commentators often point out a "curse" associated with the presidential campaigns that he runs since he has yet to claim victory for any of his candidates in over eight presidential elections."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9895-2004Sep9.html
Politics used to be great fun ,you got your army out and they got there's ,now the university dropouts have taken over ,now its full of handbag fighting
Chad, are you deliberately lying, or just forgetful?
'How about hosting meetings to help the Tory Party? I attended the "Case for Change" meeting in July 2005 that was solely focussed on what was needed to revive the Tory Party'
According to er, you, (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/chad_noble/index.html)
you had "an unexpected invitation to the 'Case For Change' C-Change meeting in July"
C-Change is "Conservatives for Change", which is not a charity, and quite clearly a specifically Tory group.
Not Policy Exchange at all.
Once again do feel free to pipe up if you have anything meaningful to say, rather than lies contradicting what you yourself wrote.
I see that the charity commission is to formally investigate complaints about the Smith Institute!
Iain, off topic but it is a nightmare to log in to Doughty Street site. Just to say I enjoyed your interview with Nadine Dorries, and can I suggest you try and get an interview with Jon Cruddas. I have to say that for a Labour MP he was excellent on 5 live yesterday, and even better those two together would be great for a bit of honest debate from the backbenches!
Bad news for the Sith on the Charity Commission website. There's a statement there:
"The Charity Commission for England and Wales has opened a formal inquiry into the charity The Smith Institute today.
The decision to open an inquiry was taken in the light of new information we have received which raises concerns about some of the charity’s work.
The scope of the inquiry is to determine whether The Smith Institute is both established and operating as a charity advancing the education of the public in the field of study and research into the economy of the United Kingdom.
The Commission has informed the charity of this decision. The Commission has been and continues to engage with the charity in relation to the issues raised."
Please do tell me the name of the equivalent Labour or LibDem organisation that also 'shares' the same office...
Oh dear, Chad, starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel. The fact that C Change and Policy Exchange are closely affiliated is evidence that they are following proper rules - party political stuff is done by C Change, and policy stuff by Policy Exchange. The fact that a separate party political organisation exists means they certainly *are* complying with rules. Why would the charity Policy Exchange engage in party political activity when there is a party political group, namely C Change, in the same office? They are two different groups, one is charitable one is not. Quite clear.
There is no Smith Institute-affiliated non-charity, so that means that any party political activities by them *definitely* are illegal.
Iain,how does Mr.Shrum spin his being on the losing side 5 times?(If he mentions it at all).
Iain; I'm a Tory, but this story is a bit weak.
First, 11 Downing Street is not 'the Treasury' as your broadcast suggests. Keith Simpson's stuff about the MOD makes no sense once you realise that (and also realise that HMT and the MOD have slightly different requirements about secrecy).
Second, Bob Shrum is actually an academic as well. He does lecture on American politics at real universities.
Third;
"There is no Smith Institute-affiliated non-charity, so that means that any party political activities by them *definitely* are illegal."
Yes, there is.
SI Events.
Do keep up at the back there.
To the last poster:
> Iain; I'm a Tory, but this story is a bit weak.
A Tory? I'll have to take your word on that.
> Second, Bob Shrum is actually an academic as well. He does lecture on American politics at real universities.
That's entirely irrelevant, if what he actually did was party political attacks on David Cameron.
> "There is no Smith Institute-affiliated non-charity, so that means that any party political activities by them *definitely* are illegal."
> Yes, there is.
> SI Events.
SI Events is not an affiliated thinktank. SI Events is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Smith Institute. For running events. And furthermore, it's not clear what's been done by SI Events and what's been done by the Smith Insititute itself.
C Change is an independent thinktank operating in parallel with Policy Exchange. There is an obvious divide between the two groups. SI Events is nothing like C Change at all.
As I said, the Smith Institute just doesn't have an related party political thinktank in the way that Policy Exchange does. This is correct.
I'm totally confused now.
So is it OK or not OK for an 'independent' think-tank to use the offices of a partisan group?
Because if it is OK for Policy Exchange to use c-changes office why can't SI use 11 Downing Street?
Both seem unwise to me, but neither worse than the other.
Easily confused Chad?
They are being criticised because 11 Downing Street is a government building maintained at considerable public expense and one associated with the Labour Chancellor. Policy Exchange's building is neither. 11 Downing Street is not a partisan group, it is the offices of the Chanceller of the Exchequer.
The Sith's offices are actually with the New Statesman's. The New Statesman is also partisan, but this arrangement is not the subject of the criticism, it is the links to government, which Policy Exchange does not have, that are.
"Easily confused Chad?"
By the partisan logic of people like yourself, yes, I admit, I, like every other man in the street, do get confused! :-)
Sorry, I thought the issue was to do with being non-partisan for charitable status
Clearly, the SI having a meeting a Number 11 is no more suggestive of being partisan than Policy Exchange holding a meeting/sharing offices with a partisan pro-Tory political group.
I agree they both may both be legal, but both look equally unwise to me.
But if you *really* are more worried about taxpayers money being abused, then obviously Cameron is already under investigation for sleaze in the cash-for-dinners scandal and both new and blue support stealing more taxpayers money through state funding of political parties.
New/Blue are as bad as each other.
"By the partisan logic of people like yourself, yes, I admit, I, like every other man in the street, do get confused! :-)"
Maybe you need to visit this site, it might enlighten you?
http://e-ukip-home.blogspot.com/
If it could be proved that Shrum is acting as an advisor to Brown then Brown is history
Post a Comment