Thread by @KateAndrs

This is @iealondon @MarkJLittlewood’s statement on the @Guardian’s story today iea.org.uk/media/iea-resp…

Most people realize ‘think tank engages in fundraising’ is not a credible story. Nonetheless, here’s a (long) #thread on their attempt to avoid engaging in the battle of ideas.

My colleagues and I have been facing an increasing number of accusations (mostly from social media), that we’re paid to say what we say. That our commitments to free-markets and liberty are simply bought-and-sold sound bites. This could not be further from the truth.

But let's pretend for a second...

The IEA’s turnover is roughly £2m per year. There are 32 people on our staff page. Divide that up, and that’s £62.5k each per year, to allegedly shill out for ‘big X’, to say things we don’t believe.

Let's keep pretending...

We’d have to be out of our minds to sell our principles for £62.5k a year. We could make more if we successfully ran for Parliament promoting these socialist ideas we're supposedly repressing, than we could at our think tank!

Of course, many of us aren’t earning anything like that. We’re operating on charity salaries, so we can meet our charitable objectives, like speaking to over 35,000 students per year about economics, putting on conferences, and more of the like.

Whisper it, but we do what we do because we care about liberty.

We are convinced by the evidence: that while socialism has failed every time it has been tried, capitalism has lifted over one billion out of poverty in a quarter of a century alone.

.@cjsnowdon believes sin taxes are regressive. He’s convinced by a wealth of evidence, that shows poorer people losing a far higher percentage of their disposable income when these taxes are implemented. He believes it, so he says it. iea.org.uk/publications/o…

.@K_Niemietz is a healthcare expert, and wants to see Britons given better access to treatment. He advocates for a hybrid state/market solution in healthcare, because he knows it works in the rest of Europe. The evidence backs this up. iea.org.uk/publications/u…

.@ShankerASingham voted to remain in the EU. Now that the UK is leaving, he wants the best Brexit we can get. That means opportunities to get forge trade deals around the world. He and his team shouldn’t apologize for turning out research that is so impressive, it has influence.

Believe it or not, I’m not funded by ‘Big Man’ when I write my pay gap briefings. I think women are strong enough to be told the truth. And the truth is that we are doing incredibly well in the workplace. I love spreading that message. iea.org.uk/publications/t…

I could go on and on. I am so lucky to work with the IEA team every day.

@MarkJLittlewood has shown such leadership today, confronting the accusations head-on, and highlighting some seriously questionable reporting...

The IEA has still not received the recordings or a transcript of recordings, that were taken secretly, without my colleagues' consent. IEA was asked to respond to the allegations within 48 hours, with the accused out of the country- yet the story didn't run for another 10 days.

Having failed to show we take money for commissioned research (we don't), they cobbled together what they thought they could make sound ugly, and put it into public domain. Every allegation in the article has a full IEA rebuttal, which you can read here: iea.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

Greenpeace has been discredited by over 100 Nobel Laureates for their fight against GMOs - especially Golden Rice - which has proven ability to save lives. supportprecisionagriculture.org/nobel-laureate…

I’m with the Laureates in thinking their policies are deeply misguided.

Apparently, so are their spending habits. How much money did it cost for their Unearthed representive to follow my colleagues around the globe, recording them without their knowledge, only to end up with a non-story?

I suspect most Greenpeace donors expect their donation to go to creating a cleaner, greener planet - not on jet fuel to follow around think tankers.

And yet, that’s where the money goes, apparently.

It’s amazing to me that Greenpeace, w/ a turnover of £6m and the Guardian, w/ a turnover of £200m, are so obsessed with a think tank of a turnover of £2m. It’s flattering - in a strange, obsessive kinda way - but it reveals something important about the current state of debate.

Guardian and Greenpeace have realized that money doesn’t always buy power. Often, it’s the quality of ideas and communication that does it. On that front, I am proud to say @iealondon outperforms itself, reaching far beyond its £2m budget.

We have an extremely talented team. But it helps that liberty sells itself. It’s innate in all of us, to want more freedom rather than less. In practice, higher taxes, the nanny state, and patronizing bureaucrats aren’t all that popular. Our arguments resonate.

Are we winning? Absolutely not. Britain’s tax burden is at an all-time high. This government actually thinks the pay gap reporting measures are a good idea. HS2 keeps living to see another day. We have a LOT more work to do!

But we’re willing to debate the ideas. We are confident in our beliefs and we’ll put them forward. The @Guardian’s front page today suggests they aren’t so confident. They want to skip the battle of ideas and go straight to the dirty tactics.

Unfortunately for them, we didn’t give them meaningful material. A day they could have given attention to an important issue in domestic or foreign politics, they’ve given to making themselves look petty.

I’m fresh off a plane, at our IEA staff away day, where we’re going to spend our time discussing what more we can do to make the world a freer place. You can be sure we’ll come up with a bunch of ideas. I’d suggest the Guardian & Greenpeace spend time doing the same.