Talk:TaxPayers' Alliance

Membership
Does anyone have any source for the group having 65,000 members? I can't find one.

88.239.201.121 (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Since there is a citation for membership of 18,000 - it would seem sensible to revert the figure to that value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinji nishizono (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

MPs
TPA meetings are regularly attended by top tories as well. As in the Shadow Cabinet. As far as I'm aware, the "front group" thing came out when it was revealed that their internal meetings always included at least one top tory. And nobody from other parties were invited.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

TaxPayers' Alliance's opposition to green taxes
Dropping this ref here for possible future inclusion. A mention of this particular aspect of the pressure group's campaigning is probably warranted:



--78.34.103.243 (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

On Euro MPs expenses
I would think it was necessary that a consideration in the article is the list of MPs expenses, campaigned for through the transparency laws of this organization, thiugh not originally, supported by them.Can we not reference this as a transparency protest movement in Europe as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.113.58 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Did this group initiate the expenses research? If so, it should go in. If the TPA only supported it after the scandal broke in the papers, it shouldn't - "me-too-ism" isn't really a noteworthy act. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Transparency
The following text was added:

"Annual income has not been disclosed, which among other barometers of organisational transparency as measured by the website 'Who Fund You?', earns the Taxpayer's Alliance the lowest rating of 'E' in think tank transparency."

I question the neutrality (and, actually, transparency), of "Who Funds You?". For all we know, it could be a pro-tax group. We know its claimed funding (none), but we don't background on the actual people. Even if the source is reliable, the information shouldn't be in that section of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why this should be so contentious, the questions that "Who Funds You?" ask of all the Think Tanks and political campaigns are listed clearly on their site and are exactly the same for every organisation they contacted as is their methodology for scoring the response. Rather than questioning the neutrality of a website that simply grades transparency, it surely prompts the question why a buisness such as the Taxpayers Alliance which claims to be "an independent grassroots organisation" should shroud it's backers and funding in secrecy? As the information from the "Who funds You?" website is not given undue weight in this article, the removal of clearly verifiable information seems to me to be a far more contentious issue than its addition. Mighty Antar (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If "Who funds You?" is not clearly an unbiased reliable source, then their ratings are inappropriate. The note that TPA doesn't reveal its source of funding may be notable, but a controversial grassroots group should not reveal its sources of funding, because of potential attacks by opponents of the group on the group's supporters.  I would be seriously upset if I were a contributor to(for example) ACLU or NRWLDF, and they were to release my name.  Perhaps things are different in the UK.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've rewritten the info and included a further source arguing for the importance of transparency to demonstrate notability. Please do rewrite the sentence, but I think think tank funding information is definitely notable. The people who run "Who funds you?" may well not be neutral, but the information that the TPA do not release funding details is fact. It's up to people reading the article to decide if think tanks should release such information of course. PhilMacD (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I still don't see why it's relevant, and not WP:UNDUE weight, for a (non-transparent) organization investigating transpaeancy to say that this organization is not transparent. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And -- a controversial think tank should not release their donor list, as donors can be shunned or actually attacked. (It's happened in the US for "anti-labor" organizations, and civil rights organizations of all types.  I don't know if these things happen in the UK.) I said that already.  It hasn't been refuted.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is clearly relevant, and has been covered by secondary sources. I have modified the wording so as to attribute the POV. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

TaxPayers’ Alliance concedes it launched smears against Brexit whistleblower
I think it is important to add this information

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/11/brexit-whistleblower-shahmir-sanni-taxpayers-alliance-concedes-it-launched-smears

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)