“Conservative strategy in dealing with criticism now involves branding them a Marxist”

That’s not new. That’s been standard debating practice across the wingnut blogoweb for the last decade. Its only recently that elected Conservatives in this country have embraced that medium and its batshit catchphrases. See Dorries, Nadine for further examples.

Where does Halfon brand the IFS “Marxist”?

Ludicrous. The Government have positively *demanded* that their policies be judged by standards Thatcher would no doubt have thought distinctly ‘centre-left’ – in terms of their ‘progressive’ or ‘regressive’ impact on the income distribution etc. That was a silly thing to do, because of course their policies are bound to favour the rich (sorry, ‘striving classes’) over the poor (sorry, ‘sponging subhuman scum’) – but they did it. It’s no use complaining when people accept their invitation.

You heard that right – it seems Conservative strategy in dealing with criticism now involves branding them a Marxist and then calling for government departments to stop working with them.

Oh no Sunny, not again. If you’re going to blatantly misrepresent someone’s words it’s probably better not to quote them in full just above it. He calls the IFS’s approach to analysing the CSR ‘centre-left’. Not Marxist. If you don’t understand the difference ask Dave Osler or Paul Sagar, I’m sure they’d be delighted to help you out. I think Dave has just been re-reading Capital, so he’s probably best placed.

And do you perhaps see that there is a subtle distinction between ‘working with’ and ‘funding’? Like the fact that they are two entirely different things?

Why do you do this Sunny? Where does the need to childishly distort opposing arguments come from? It would have been a perfectly good argument that the Tories were fans of the IFS in opposition, but were less keen in Govt – so why feel the need to lie about what a backbench MP said instead?

What Tim J said.

Come on Sunny, you’re better than this.

Shame about the “marxist” bit as that will now dominate responses.

In reality the issue here is that some tories would like to send out the message that those who counter their spin – even where they are fiercely independent – should have their funding cut by way of a punishment.

The IFS is an excellent organisation and Nick Clegg’s recent attempt to justify such a regressive CSR by redefining what should and should not count is not only pathetic, but also hypocritical given that he used IFS numbers to attack Labour in office and had them “audit” his party’s manifesto (so much wasted ink and paper that it was)

that those who counter their spin – even where they are fiercely independent – should have their funding cut by way of a punishment.

Um. Isn’t there an argument that being ‘fiercely independent’ rather implies not being funded by central Government?

@ 7 Tim

“Um. Isn’t there an argument that being ‘fiercely independent’ rather implies not being funded by central Government?”

Maybe, but it’s wrong. I can’t think of a more politically independent broadcaster than the BBC, for example.

8 – The BBC isn’t funded by central Government. In fact, the BBC has fought incredibly hard to not be funded by central Government precisely on the grounds that its independence would be compromised.

Incidentally, why no coverage of today’s GDP figures? They’re remarkably good.

It’s government-funded, though. What precise distinction are you making?

10 – The BBC thinks that there’s an extemely important distinction between direct funding from central Govt and funding through the licence fee. It’s been the subject of quite a few arguments over the years.

The primary reason the BBC are opposed to ending the licence fee and being directly funded by the Govt instead is that they are afraid it will impact on their independence. I don’t think this is a terribly contentious point.

@ 11

My ignorance about the Beeb’s funding system is revealed!

Doesn’t the licence fee also cover non-BBC operations, though? I think C4 gets some of it. Who divvies it up?

12 – Now there you have me! The BBC do have to fund other things from the licence fee, but since they are in charge of collecting it, I assume they divvy it up according to what Parliament lays down.

The BBC clearly aren’t entirely independent of state funding – it’s just that the way in which it’s done has been designed to be as indirect as possible.

@ 13

Fair enough. Transparency’s important too, of course. If the goverment cuts BBC funding, that’s biggish news. I doubt the same can be said for the IFS.

In Dave’s Jack boot Britain, criticism will not be tolerated.

And people wonder why I call them brownshirts.

No, people get confused over why you call them brownshirts because they are unable to recognise a metaphor when they see one, and take it to mean literal brownshirt. Then they offer a stonkingly enormous £50 donation to charity should you be able to prove this misreading.

Brownshirts don’t mind using tax payers money just as long as it is going to their brownshirt mates.

@ 16

“No, people get confused over why you call them brownshirts because they are unable to recognise a metaphor when they see one, and take it to mean literal brownshirt.”

No, people are aware it’s a metaphor but are fed up of a troll using it as an insult (alongside ‘Nazi’, ‘Tory’ and, weirdly, ‘troll’) and flinging it at every single person she disagrees with, because she’s unable to understand the concept of having a conversation without acting like a ten year old brat whose had their TV privileges cancelled.

That’s why people don’t like it. Stop feeding the damn trolls.

How can a body that analyzes UK economic policy be funded? Would the IFS be more independent if it had to rely on corporate donors? Independent analysis of the the IFS sort is a public good and should absolutely be funded by taxpayers.

Where does Halfon brand the IFS “Marxist”?

My god – all of you lot have lost your sense of humour.

Where does the need to childishly distort opposing arguments come from?

Sometimes I’m amazed that people come here and say these things with a straight face.

Anyone with half a brain can read the above and see I’m taking the piss out of the Tory MP, and therefore exaggerating for emphasis.

The fact that I actually have to explain this (yes, I’m quite aware of the difference between a Marxist and centre-left thank you!) shows how po-faced some readers get when their lot have some criticism.

How about dealing with the substantive point here?

There is clearly a possibility that the IFS might refrain from criticising the Government if they perceive their funding to be under threat.

So henceforth I will take any criticism from the IFS of the Government’s fiscal policies even more seriously.

“That might otherwise be interpreted as: let’s subsidise our friends at the TaxPayers Alliance instead.”

Possible, but it would be foolish. Not only are the TPA rightly seen as biased zealots in many areas, they would turn on the Tories in an instant if they thought they were wasting state money (and, to the TPA, basically everything is a waste of state money).

Sunny @ 21

How about dealing with the substantive point here?

OK. Halfon is right. There’s no call for using taxpayer money to prop up the IFS now we have the OBR, which is now run by the very same brainbox who used to run the IFS. Why pay the monkey when we’ve got the organ-grinder on the payroll?

“My god – all of you lot have lost your sense of humour.”

You can’t lose what you never had.