the taxpayers’ alliance is a collection of very nasty pieces of work who are only interested in reducing their tax bills as the expense of the poor, who they very rarely have any contact with.
anything that helps to highlight their agenda, and how over represented they are

Same could be said about the way the media report Ian Dale.

Note to media… He is not a political commentator of integrity. He is a Tory lap dog.

Sounds like you think the TPA is pulling the same sort of stunts about its membership and finance that the Smith Insitute. But since the SI was designed to illegally fund the sainted Gogon Yellow thats OK.

Just to say Chris: good work on trawling through and analysing all that far-right drivel that the TPA spew out, so we don’t have to.

2. Use initiative
When presented with a TPA press release, aim to rewrite at least half of it.

You mean, blatantly misrepresent the TPA’s actual statements.

Shorter TPA-supporting trolls: Never question anything the TPA say.

“1. Give context
The TaxPayers’ Alliance is a right-wing pressure group – and so should be described as a ‘right-wing pressure group’. Additional adjectives may be used at your discretion.”

Fair enough, provided it’s universally applied. I.e the plethora of climate change/cycling/healthy eating activists are described as “left wing pressure groups” and pretty much every “expert” that the BBC wheel out, who just also happens to be an “advisor” to the Govt should be correctly referred to as “Government spokesperson”

The left should be carefull what the wish for in my view.

“You mean, blatantly misrepresent the TPA’s actual statements.”

Indeed, this totalitarian arsehole, sorry poster, would have been a rising star in Stalin’s MInistry of Truth

6. Because we disagree with the TPA, smear. Under no account deal with the arguments on merit.

You people are lower than vermin.

Under no account deal with the arguments on merit.

But even if their arguments were taken apart, you’d still shill for them and cuss any lefties challenging their ‘research’. So spare us the moralising bullshit please.

@Matt Munro

Fair enough, provided it’s universally applied. I.e the plethora of climate change/cycling/healthy eating activists are described as “left wing pressure groups”

So, there are no right-wingers out there who are also concerned about environmental issues?

Because, despite the image given by the bloggertarians, I know *loads* of conservatives who are also environmentalists, and not just the eco-Cameronites either.

By all means challenge the research, but the list above can be boiled down to
1. Make sure you call them names

2. Once you’ve called names, deliberately misrepresent the argument

3. Then indulge in ad-homiem.

4. Then set up the straw man by suggesting that only rich people support the TPA.

5. Then accuse them of dishonesty.

This is not engaging with the TPA’s arguments on merit, is it Sunny? I do not agree with everything the TPA produces, but I support their general aims, and I do disagree with lefties. That’s what I do. It is not the same as Shilling.

Liberal Conspiracy, on the other hand is a Labour shill organisation.

Liberal Conspiracy, on the other hand is a Labour shill organisation.

Even though it isn’t, that’s the political equivalent of the “my dad’s bigger than yours” argument. Unless you have anything intelligent to say or an actual argument to make against the post in question you’re just a lame troll. We hate the Tories and what’s your point?

And perhaps you should read the actual report, which highlights plenty of inconsistencies in TPA ‘research’ before you make yourself look even more idiotic.

“So, there are no right-wingers out there who are also concerned about environmental issues?

Because, despite the image given by the bloggertarians, I know *loads* of conservatives who are also environmentalists, and not just the eco-Cameronites either.”

I never said there weren’t any right wing environmentalists (I’ve been recycling, without a huge fuss since the early 1990s, well before it was fashionable), but the kind of in your face – my organic vegetables are more ethical than yours – type environmentalism, the sort of bearded twat who gets his reusable carrier bag out with a flourish in the supermarket queue, do seem to be largely be a product of the left’s totalitarian approach to environmentalism.
One of the reasons why many people of all political hues are turned off envornmentalism is because of the sanctimonious and puritanical image the left have managed to give it.

One of the reasons why many people of all political hues are turned off envornmentalism i

But that would only mean you had people arguing about the different methods to approaching environmentalism, not outright climate-change denialism and pumping out false statistics and ‘research’.

I’ve no interest in the dribbly report, Sunny. I’m interested in this blog post, which specifically advises commentators to ignore the arguments, and to engage in illogical and dishonest practices to rubbish the TPA.

Sure the TPA are not above criticism, but their output is better than this post. If the start point of your argument is “We hate the Tories” as you suggest, then your argument is emotional, not logical. You’re making yourself look idiotic.

Neil @ comment 6

What stupid logic. If you’re not willing to lie and smear the TPA then you must be a credulous dupe.

And here I was thinking the left was supposed to disagree with such either-or black & white thinking.

One extra top tip:

6. Keep things in perspective
Avoid becoming apoplectic with rage when faced with some gentle chiding of the press for publishing the TPA’s point of view verbatim. Try not to confuse a suggestion that journalists should solicit more than one opinion with Stalinism.

@ Clifford singer –

If anyone’s becoming ‘apoplectic with rage’ it’s the ones who say things like, ‘I HATE the Tories’. Hate, rage, hmm I think I see a connection here!

Amazing how offended you all are by the simple suggestion that journalists do some, y’know, journalism. What’s the problem? Does it mess up your plan or something?

@12,16, you’re missing the point here, which has nothing to do with smearing or dishonesty and everything to do with good practice in journalism. Going back to your criticisms in 12:

1) the TPA is a right-wing pressure group, not an independent research organisation. Similarly, newspapers should refer to (e.g) the the IPPR as a left-wing think-tank. This isn’t partisan, it’s honesty.

2) reprinting a pressure group’s press release near-verbatim but under your own byline rather than in quotes isn’t journalism, it’s churnalism. *At the very least* you should call an expert who isn’t affiliated with the TPA for a quote (preferably a real expert, say, an economist who studies tax incidence, rather than an equally daft and biased left-winger like Richard Murphy, but even the latter would be better than nothing). Saying that’s misrepresentation is simply insane.

3-5) you’re committing the ad-hominem fallacy fallacy on these. If you say “we should lower taxes”, and I say “but Fred West believed that we should lower taxes, so anyone who wants to lower taxes is a mass-murderer”, then I’m committing the ad-hominem fallacy.

But if you say “my report says we should lower taxes, and you should listen to me because I’m an important think tank”, and I point out that you’re actually two cranks and a fax machine funded partly by a bunch of very rich people and partly from sources you refuse to disclose, then that’s entirely legitimate.

It’s *correct* to take, as a starting point, the principle that an organisation funded by the Methodist Church will be hostile to alcohol, an organisation funded by Rupert Murdoch will be hostile to the BBC, an organisation funded by the Communist Party will be hostile to business, and so on.

Hence, it’s *correct* to reveal an organisation’s funding sources when writing about the opinions that its work supports. And correct to point out that it doesn’t reveal them if it doesn’t.

All the commentary above absolutely 100% goes for Fake Charities as well.

Also worth pointing out that the TPA’s refusal to reveal its funding sources means *I* might be funding it, unwittingly. Which is ironic, given the territory.

Might there be a place for a left-wing rival to the TPA? I don’t just mean something like the oTPA, which defines itself in reference to the original, but a pressure group dedicated to fighting cuts that make life harder for those at the bottom of society purely to help out the rich.

The unions kind of do the job, but they’re a bit to close to be credible I think.

I’m slightly puzzled. The TPA is an employed, so surely it has some kind of legal status, like a company limited by guarantee, If that’s the case they’re required to state their registration details on their website, which I can’t see. Anyone know their legal status as a group?