Official UK Inquiry criticises Bob Shrum

The Charity Commission, the official body regulating charitable status, has issued its report on the Smith Institute, the Prime Minister's pet think tank. And it is highly critical.

In the spotlight? Comment Central's old friend Bob Shrum.

The Institute (named for former Labour leader the late John Smith) has been under pressure following a campaign by Guido Fawkes, for whom, the Commissions findings are a clear vindication.

The burden of the criticism made by various bloggers, led by Guido, is that the Institute, using 11 Downing Street (at the time Gordon Brown's official residence) for its high profile seminars was effectively a party political organsisation shielding behind charitable status.

Gordon Brown, it was suggested, was using the charity as his own policy development and political strategy arm.

Yet charitable status, which brings big tax and fundraising advantages, is only granted to think tanks who steer clear of party activity.

Now the Commission has published the results of an Inquiry and found against the Institute on the vast majority of the questions before it.

So what has Shrummy got to do with it?

Well, he was the subject of one of the complaints.

Shrum is a Brown friend and adviser and, surprise, surprise, a senior fellow of the Smith Institute. Here's what the official inquiry had to say:

91. In addition, the Commission also found that in 2006 the Institute's then Senior Research Fellow, Robert Shrum, had made inappropriate party political comments at an Institute event. During the question and answer session at the event Centre Ground or Common Ground: Progressives in the New Political Landscape he made a number of party political remarks, including:

'So that leads me to say that you have to hold the Tories accountable for their opportunism and you have to expose their real purpose. And by the way, that's the answer in terms of the Lib Dems, too.

I agree with you Labour cannot allow the Tories to set the terms of the debate. Labour cannot allow them to domesticate themselves and make people think about them as happy, "third way" sorts of people.'

92. The Institute accepts that:

'...Mr Shrum may have stepped over the bounds in viva voce responses in what, nonetheless, would, in robust academic circles, be considered an unexceptional way'. The Institute also comment that the incident was 'regrettable and it goes without saying that...[the Institute] will continue to do what they can to forestall that.'

Conclusion:

The Commission concluded that the Institute took insufficient steps to regulate inappropriate party political comments made by its Senior Research Fellow, Robert Shrum, at one of the Institute's events.

Comments

[Jeremy Poynton]

Good stuff Guido! And where was the MSM when all this was going on? Licking the Smith Institute's boots, that's where - no wonder the newspapers are dying.

[Mike]

The report is a Whitewash. Some criticisms but I'd hardly call it highly critical.
Everyone and his dog knows that the Smith Institute is a political front organisation for Brown. It is a disgrace that it masquerades as a charity, for all the tax and fund-raising benefits that accrues. Post report, the Smith Institute is still a charity and continues on it's merry way with Gordon.
Fink - I draw your attention to foot-note 71 "The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown MP did not respond to the Commission's correspondence". Good to see our elected representatives supporting transparency and accountability. Not

[OAP]

Well its not a charity is it!

Looks like a case for the Inland Revenue to me, at the very least any tax advantages must be repaid in full with interest.

[Andy]

I'm sorry but a 49 p.g. report and you decide to focus on comments made at a function? YAWN!

Surely there was something a little more interesting in that report rather then a bit of personal mud slinging.

[ed]

Why would anybody want to listen to Bob Shrum? Without exception, every election where Bob Shrum has been involved, the candidate lost. Check it out yourself.

[Jennifer]

I wrote to the Charity Commission to complain about the activities of the Smith Institute 18 months ago. I received a high-handed and dismissive email in response. I am a volunteer worker for a small charity. The Smith Institute is not, and never was, a charity. This report is a whitewash, and an insult to taxpayers and honest charities alike.

[chris]

Don't remember Ed Balls was on the gravy train, employed with the SI, while being lined up for a safe seat. I'm sure it gave Ed time to work out his future housing allowances. One for Guido!

[martin whitaker]

Why in gods name would anyone
listen to Bob Shrum about politic's.
I thought only my democratic party
in US was stupid enought to listen
to this loser.

He has been political strategist
on 9 Presidential campaigns for
the democtratic party, all were
lost.
He needs to go back to what he does
best, drinking with Teresa Heinz Kerry, oh I forgot campaign's over time to drop the name Kerry.

[Henry]

So what about the Tory 'think tank' Policy Exchange. Even one of its booklets describe the PE as Tory. Is the Charity Commission doing anything about this?

[Martin]

To think that Brown and Shrum dragged the name of John Smith through the mud for this ratbag organisation?

Shame on them!

[Dan Noone]

Wow, Danny, how much do you regret writing this before reading the report yourself? Contrary to Guido Fawkes' desperate spinning, as parroted above, the report clears Brown, tells us the Smith Institute is subject to the same tensions as other politically-oriented charities (Policy Exchange, the Christian Institute, etc.), and utterly destroys the final shreds of Guido's tattered credibility. Watching him trying to squirm his way out of this on his blog has been most enjoyable.