SNP MP Alyn Smith called out a right-wing think tank’s “non-transparent” funding on Question Time after a representative of the group downplayed Boris Johnson’s role in the partygate scandal.
The exchange followed concerns being raised that Thursday’s panel was unbalanced in its political representation, with three of the five panel members having links to the Tories.
During the programme, Emily Carver, a former Tory MP adviser and current head of media for the Institute of Economic Affairs, seemed to suggest that Boris Johnson may not have attended the Downing Street party that he was fined for taking part in.
She said: “We have Boris Johnson who has been done for one fine for essentially, I don’t think he even ate the cake at this event he was supposedly at."
She went on to reference the sum of tax payer money that went into the investigation.
She added: “I just do think we need to look, £460,000 of taxpayer’s money going into an investigation over something so minor.”
Emily Carver just implied Boris Johnson may not have even been at the gathering the police just fined him for.
— Femi (@Femi_Sorry) May 19, 2022
So Alyn Smith questioned the funding behind the IEA, the organisation paying her to spout such blatant propaganda.@CarverEmily: It's secret!#BBCqt THANKS @AlynSmith pic.twitter.com/TO1EPv0kMf
Later on in the show, Smith took an opportunity to question Carver over how her organisation is funded and the place it afforded her on the programme’s panel.
He said: “Well if we’re talking about transparent sources of finance, I do hope we can start with Emily’s organisation and that transparency of who we’re all representing tonight.”
Smith then noted a report that other think tanks had rated the IEA as “non-transparent in the financing of its organisation”. The IEA does not declare its funders and has previously been the centre of controversy when it was accused of offering US donors access to UK Government ministers.
READ MORE: Questions for BBC as figures reveal limited coverage of Nicola Sturgeon US
In response to Smith's concerns, Carver said: “We welcome when donors would like to say they fund us or donate or give to our charity.
"But otherwise I think I am sat here on a panel as myself, representing my organisation, representing the fact I’m an economist at Conservative Home and also representing the fact I’ve done my research on many issues.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel