On the issue of compassionate conservatism, that is, as I think you indicate, a blanket term that could really mean anything, as we’ve seen in the US, it’s not entirely clear what is compassionate about Bush’s conservatism. So compassionate conservatism is essentially meaningless, and is just a blanket term for a raft of policies behind it. Without the policies behind it is meaningless. A left-wing thinktank might advocate “social justice”, an ideology associated with the Labour party, but it does not mean anything on its own. Another one might advocate “free trade” or whatever else. These are the aims of the group.

I think you are really grasping at straws to suggest that a charitable thinktank having an ideology that, in your view, is associated with a particular party is prohibited. This is quite blatantly not the case from the rules. ALL charitable thinktanks have an overall ideology, otherwise they would be pointless and no-one would want to be involved with them.

Endorsing candidates = not allowed
Endorsing parties = not allowed
Attacking other parties = not allowed
Attacking other candidates = not allowed

I think everyone is well aware that there are a number of left-wing and right-wing that endorse policies/ideologies associated with both parties. This is not what is being questioned with respect to the Smith Institute.

That Conservative figures are involved with Policy Exchange is hardly surprising - if its aims are conservative in outlook, then you would expect conservatives (with a small ‘c’) to be its members. The Conservative party, for very obvious reason, comprises most of the major conservative thinkers in the UK. That they do not mention on their website that their members are nearly all Conservative party figures is quite correct, as they are non-partisan, and therefore it would be wrong (in breach of charitable aims) to imply that they are a Conservative as distinct from conservative thinktank by listing the party affiliations. It is no coverup not to list this, it is just sensible. If you are a conservative-minded charity it would be absurd to exclude people just because they are Conservative MPs/members/whatever, as this would leave virtually no-one yes.

So let’s not get tied up with arguing about policies and ideologies. All thinktanks do this. There is very specific controversy with the Smith Institute that is nothing to do with policy research and everything to do with improper party political behaviour by a supposed charitable body. There is nobody throwing stones in glass houses. The principle of conservative or socialist/social democratic charities is quite well established, and there just isn’t anything controversial about it.

1. It’s far from established as yet as to whether it was the Smith Institute or SI Events Ltd that organised the meetings addressed by Bob Shrum.

If its the former, then there’s a problem. If the latter then there is none - a non-charitable trading arm own by a charity is under no express political restrictions, provided that a clear line is kept between its activities and those of its parent charity.

If SI Events is shown to have been merely the ‘hired help’ that took care of only the organisational elements of the meeting on behalf of a paying customer then these meetings are of no consequence. The same goes for Shrum, if he was addressing the meeting as Bob Shrum (Pundit) and Bob Shrum (fellow of the Smith Institute) then his comments are of no consequence to the Charity Commission.

2. Do try an keep up…

Introducing ID cards is a policy.

Whether or not to withdraw from the EU is a policy.

How to configure the tax system to best effect is a policy.

‘Compassionate conservatism’ is NOT a policy, its a broad statement of a general ideological/ philosophical viewpoint that informs policy, and one that is directly and publicly linked to a specific political party at the present time - the Tories.

In terms of the public character of a charity, support for specific policies based on research is not a problem, support for a specific political party based on an ideological position is, and what matters is not just what a charity does but how it is perceived and how its actions contribute to those perceptions.

My main point in all this is a simple one - people in glass houses should not throw stones.

You quote from the CC rules:
“Following the principles, it is acceptable for a charity to advocate support for a particular policy, even if that policy solution is advocated by a political party or candidate, providing the policy is in furtherance of the charity’s purposes.”

And yet you say

“The problem here, as I see it, is that Norman’s book is not advocating or supporting a policy, rather its explicitly supporting a broad ideological position, ‘compassionate conservativism’ , one that it specifically identified with a particular political leader - Dave Cameron - and with a specific political party, the Conservative Party.”

I have no idea why you distinguish between policy and “broad ideological position”, but to be a compassionate conservative seems to me to be the “policy solution”, just as is supporting social justice or anything else. They are allowed to endorse every single one of the Tories policies or ideologies or whatever you want to call them. Nowhere does the Commission say otherwise.

So what was the point of your post?

They are perfectly entitled to publish a hundred pamphlets endorsing policies that are Tory policies. Including ‘compassionate conservatism’. And yes, they can do those policies on the same day as David Cameron does his speeches, and yes, as their goals are furthering their policy research results, it would seem *good* use of charity funds to send their research to the Conservative party, as if their policy research is adopted by the Tory party, then their policy is that much closer to being adopted in this country. So the fact that David Cameron speaks on things at the same time that they report is proof that they are an effective charity.

Can you see the difference between this and paying people to attack David Cameron?

Policy/ideology/whatever you want to call it = ok
Abusing 11 Downing street/paying people to attack David Cameron = not ok

So just remind us what was supposed to be wrong with this conservative charity? They got their research adopted by one of the major political parties, furthering their charitable goals, and they endorsed “compassionate conservatism” (with a small c, which is clearly a policy, and one that could plausibly adopted by Blair, Campbell or Cameron), also furthering their charitable goals if the charity believes that “compassionate conservatism” will make Britain a better place.

Yes, I’m sure the Charity Commission will want to investigate Policy Exchange for doing exactly what they are supposed to do under their charitable charter. Not….

Oh goodie. Paul Staines: Iain Dale has a piece on Doughty Street TV tonight about the Smith Institute which explains why they should lose their charitable status. If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll know why this is the very definition……