| From | TaxPayers' Alliance <[email protected]> |
| Subject | Weekly bulletin: A policy win, blurred lines, and HS2 |
| Date | May 24, 2026 10:01 AM |
Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏
[link removed]
Blurred lines
Did you know, there are around 170,000 registered charities in the UK? They come in many different shapes and sizes and cover all manner of causes. When we think about them, we often imagine people running marathons for local community groups, or volunteers with collection tins in high streets supporting a hospice, or even TV appeals to help dig wells in Africa. One thing that often gets overlooked however, is just how reliant on funding from taxpayers some charities have become and what happens to the money they’re given.
The latest research from the TPA team [[link removed]] has taken a look at how some large charities, which we define as having income of at least £10 million a year, now receive significant proportions of their income from taxpayers.
According to their 2024 financial reports, 811 large charities received some level of income from government sources. Some 380 received at least a quarter, 257 received at least half, 165 came in at three quarters, and 21 got at least 99 per cent of their money from taxpayers.
It’s incredibly important to stress that there’s nothing inherently wrong with this. Charities and community groups have long been used to deliver services and they often do so far better than distant bureaucrats in Whitehall. The trouble is, there’s often very little in the way of transparency and accountability in how that money is spent, and it’s not always spent on things taxpayers would support.
The Walk Wheel Cycle Trust (formerly Sustrans) is a good example. In 2023-24, 90 per cent of its income, £132 million, came from taxpayers. Despite this funding, the group actively pushes for expanded cycling infrastructure, lower car usage, traffic calming measures, and 20mph speed limits. I think it’s fair to say not all of these are universally popular.
William Yarwood took to the TPA studio [[link removed]] to run through all the numbers and what’s going wrong.
[link removed]
Where organisations are so dependent on taxpayers’ cash, they ought to be far more open to public scrutiny and oversight.
Our paper makes clear [[link removed]] that any large charity receiving over 50 per cent of their income from government sources for three years should be reclassified as an arm's-length body (ALB). Just as with the British Council which is both a registered charity and an ALB, dual classification would provide democratic oversight and transparency without expanding the state's reach.
At 25 per cent, they should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and public sector reporting standards, particularly regarding remuneration and performance, while any charity receiving more than 10 per cent of its income from taxpayers should be banned from political lobbying.
Many charities do excellent work and having them deliver services is often far better for taxpayers but it’s time to recognise that some have become arms of the state and to treat them accordingly.
The Real Reason for Recessions
What actually causes recessions? Are economic downturns inevitable, or are they the result of political mistakes and bad policy decisions? And when one economy starts to shrink, how quickly can the rest of the world follow?
In this week’s episode of a nation of taxpayers, podcast host Duncan Barkes is joined by John O'Connell and former Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and current ExxonMobil chief economist, Dr Tyler Goodspeed, to discuss his new book Recession: The Real Reasons Economies Shrink and What to Do about It.
[link removed]
Together, they explore what really drives recessions, whether governments help or hinder recovery, and what today's economic warning signs could mean for Britain and the wider global economy.
Give the latest episode of a nation of taxpayers a listen on Apple Podcasts [[link removed]], Spotify [[link removed]], and watch now on YouTube [[link removed]].
Who’d have guessed?
If you’ve followed our work at all over the years, you’ll know we’ve been no fans of the white elephant that is HS2. Since way back in 2011 we’ve been warning about the costs and showing the many better ways that money could be spent.
Our analysis has often been dismissed by those responsible for the scheme with one HS2 spokesman describing it as “the finest work of fantasy and fiction since JRR Tolkien last put down his pen.” Well, as John writes in this blog, it turns out we were right after all. [[link removed]]
Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, gave a statement this week conceding [[link removed]] that the line could cost up to £102.7 billion, equivalent to £1 billion per mile of track. That is an absolutely extraordinary figure [[link removed]]. Even this though may not be giving the full picture. In cash terms, once inflation is included, the figure could go even higher hitting £112 billion [[link removed]].
You might think being so over budget, the team at the top of HS2 would be doing all they could to keep expenses down. It looks like you’d be wrong. We now know that the HS2 board are hitting the town and racking up bills of over £500 for dinners and sticking taxpayers with the tab [[link removed]]. Apparently these are “opportunities to build relationships and hold detailed project discussions for which there is not always time during the day.” Do me a favour! Callum McGoldrick was spot on when he told the Independent: “If the HS2 board wants to have meetings, they should hold them in their offices during the working day like everyone else.”
[link removed]
Of course, we all know what needs to happen. Sitting down in front of the camera [[link removed]], William didn’t mince his words: “If this government had any sense at all, they’d consign HS2 to the dustbin of history where it belongs.”
Fuel duty rise defeated (for now)
There was a little bit of good news this week as it was confirmed that the planned hike to fuel duty due in September has been scrapped, though only for the rest of the year. If the rise had gone ahead, households would have been staring down the barrel of an almost £40,000 lifetime fuel duty bill! [[link removed]] Thousands of you used our tool to contact your MP demanding the hike be scrapped and this result is a testament to your efforts. Thank you!
Sadly, there was very little else to cheer in the chancellor’s cost of living package. Beyond a change to the tax free mileage rate, the other measures seemed to focus on cutting VAT on attractions and children’s meals during the summer, and free travel for kids in August.
Ultimately, Reeves and her cabinet colleagues share a large part of the blame for the mess we’re currently in and as ever they’d rather tinker round the edges than deal with the root causes, a point John made when he heard the news [[link removed]]: “Taxpayers will see right through this so-called ‘cost of living’ plan as little more than a sticking plaster from the chancellor whose own policies have made life more expensive in the first place… Labour piled more costs onto employers through higher national insurance contributions and recklessly pursued the net zero agenda.”
Parking perks
New figures this week revealed that the number of blue badges being dished out for ‘hidden disabilities’ surged from 18,000 in 2021 to 55,000 last year. While the scheme’s expansion was originally intended to include people with conditions like dementia, arthritis, or Parkinson’s disease, more and more badges are being dished out for things like ADHD and anxiety [[link removed]]. There are even social-media tutorials, coaching people on how to claim.
[link removed]
Shimeon Lee joined U105 radio to discuss the situation [[link removed]]: “We have seen an explosion of people claiming for these hidden disabilities… It’s a core issue about fairness. People are willing to give this priority to people with severe physical disabilities but they don’t want the system to be misused.”
Paying for the paperwork: how internal bureaucracy is expanding at TPR
Jonathan Eida returns to the TPA blog with another in-depth analysis [[link removed]], this time turning his attention to the Pensions Regulator (TPR). Jonathan explores how TPR’s size and remit have expanded in recent years, the impact on businesses and taxpayers, and what should be done to improve the situation.
As Jonathan writes: “Businesses must navigate a fragmented system involving multiple regulators with overlapping responsibilities, creating additional complexity, regulatory burden and uncertainty… Consolidation would create a clearer and more coherent framework, providing businesses with a single prudential figurehead and reducing regulatory duplication across the sector.” Have a read of Jonathan’s analysis in full here [[link removed]].
Non-job of the week
I thought we’d do something new (or old depending on how long you’ve been subscribed to this newsletter) for our War on Waste section this week, (re)introducing: Non-job of the week.
As you might have guessed, non-job of the week showcases absurd jobs that you’re paying for. This week’s entrant is an ‘Inclusion & Talent Programmes Manager [[link removed]]’ currently being recruited by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. With a salary of up to £43,200 if you’re appropriately qualified, the role includes playing “a central role in shaping how inclusion and talent are understood and delivered across the organisation” and “using EDI reporting, Pay Gap data and People Survey results to understand trends”. Essential requirements include being “someone who genuinely cares about equality, diversity and inclusion and can bring that to life in a practical, credible way.”
Your taxes hard at work…
Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy the bank holiday weekend
Benjamin Elks, grassroots development manager
The TaxPayers' Alliance © 2026 – Unsubscribe [[link removed]]
[link removed]
Blurred lines
Did you know, there are around 170,000 registered charities in the UK? They come in many different shapes and sizes and cover all manner of causes. When we think about them, we often imagine people running marathons for local community groups, or volunteers with collection tins in high streets supporting a hospice, or even TV appeals to help dig wells in Africa. One thing that often gets overlooked however, is just how reliant on funding from taxpayers some charities have become and what happens to the money they’re given.
The latest research from the TPA team [[link removed]] has taken a look at how some large charities, which we define as having income of at least £10 million a year, now receive significant proportions of their income from taxpayers.
According to their 2024 financial reports, 811 large charities received some level of income from government sources. Some 380 received at least a quarter, 257 received at least half, 165 came in at three quarters, and 21 got at least 99 per cent of their money from taxpayers.
It’s incredibly important to stress that there’s nothing inherently wrong with this. Charities and community groups have long been used to deliver services and they often do so far better than distant bureaucrats in Whitehall. The trouble is, there’s often very little in the way of transparency and accountability in how that money is spent, and it’s not always spent on things taxpayers would support.
The Walk Wheel Cycle Trust (formerly Sustrans) is a good example. In 2023-24, 90 per cent of its income, £132 million, came from taxpayers. Despite this funding, the group actively pushes for expanded cycling infrastructure, lower car usage, traffic calming measures, and 20mph speed limits. I think it’s fair to say not all of these are universally popular.
William Yarwood took to the TPA studio [[link removed]] to run through all the numbers and what’s going wrong.
[link removed]
Where organisations are so dependent on taxpayers’ cash, they ought to be far more open to public scrutiny and oversight.
Our paper makes clear [[link removed]] that any large charity receiving over 50 per cent of their income from government sources for three years should be reclassified as an arm's-length body (ALB). Just as with the British Council which is both a registered charity and an ALB, dual classification would provide democratic oversight and transparency without expanding the state's reach.
At 25 per cent, they should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act and public sector reporting standards, particularly regarding remuneration and performance, while any charity receiving more than 10 per cent of its income from taxpayers should be banned from political lobbying.
Many charities do excellent work and having them deliver services is often far better for taxpayers but it’s time to recognise that some have become arms of the state and to treat them accordingly.
The Real Reason for Recessions
What actually causes recessions? Are economic downturns inevitable, or are they the result of political mistakes and bad policy decisions? And when one economy starts to shrink, how quickly can the rest of the world follow?
In this week’s episode of a nation of taxpayers, podcast host Duncan Barkes is joined by John O'Connell and former Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and current ExxonMobil chief economist, Dr Tyler Goodspeed, to discuss his new book Recession: The Real Reasons Economies Shrink and What to Do about It.
[link removed]
Together, they explore what really drives recessions, whether governments help or hinder recovery, and what today's economic warning signs could mean for Britain and the wider global economy.
Give the latest episode of a nation of taxpayers a listen on Apple Podcasts [[link removed]], Spotify [[link removed]], and watch now on YouTube [[link removed]].
Who’d have guessed?
If you’ve followed our work at all over the years, you’ll know we’ve been no fans of the white elephant that is HS2. Since way back in 2011 we’ve been warning about the costs and showing the many better ways that money could be spent.
Our analysis has often been dismissed by those responsible for the scheme with one HS2 spokesman describing it as “the finest work of fantasy and fiction since JRR Tolkien last put down his pen.” Well, as John writes in this blog, it turns out we were right after all. [[link removed]]
Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, gave a statement this week conceding [[link removed]] that the line could cost up to £102.7 billion, equivalent to £1 billion per mile of track. That is an absolutely extraordinary figure [[link removed]]. Even this though may not be giving the full picture. In cash terms, once inflation is included, the figure could go even higher hitting £112 billion [[link removed]].
You might think being so over budget, the team at the top of HS2 would be doing all they could to keep expenses down. It looks like you’d be wrong. We now know that the HS2 board are hitting the town and racking up bills of over £500 for dinners and sticking taxpayers with the tab [[link removed]]. Apparently these are “opportunities to build relationships and hold detailed project discussions for which there is not always time during the day.” Do me a favour! Callum McGoldrick was spot on when he told the Independent: “If the HS2 board wants to have meetings, they should hold them in their offices during the working day like everyone else.”
[link removed]
Of course, we all know what needs to happen. Sitting down in front of the camera [[link removed]], William didn’t mince his words: “If this government had any sense at all, they’d consign HS2 to the dustbin of history where it belongs.”
Fuel duty rise defeated (for now)
There was a little bit of good news this week as it was confirmed that the planned hike to fuel duty due in September has been scrapped, though only for the rest of the year. If the rise had gone ahead, households would have been staring down the barrel of an almost £40,000 lifetime fuel duty bill! [[link removed]] Thousands of you used our tool to contact your MP demanding the hike be scrapped and this result is a testament to your efforts. Thank you!
Sadly, there was very little else to cheer in the chancellor’s cost of living package. Beyond a change to the tax free mileage rate, the other measures seemed to focus on cutting VAT on attractions and children’s meals during the summer, and free travel for kids in August.
Ultimately, Reeves and her cabinet colleagues share a large part of the blame for the mess we’re currently in and as ever they’d rather tinker round the edges than deal with the root causes, a point John made when he heard the news [[link removed]]: “Taxpayers will see right through this so-called ‘cost of living’ plan as little more than a sticking plaster from the chancellor whose own policies have made life more expensive in the first place… Labour piled more costs onto employers through higher national insurance contributions and recklessly pursued the net zero agenda.”
Parking perks
New figures this week revealed that the number of blue badges being dished out for ‘hidden disabilities’ surged from 18,000 in 2021 to 55,000 last year. While the scheme’s expansion was originally intended to include people with conditions like dementia, arthritis, or Parkinson’s disease, more and more badges are being dished out for things like ADHD and anxiety [[link removed]]. There are even social-media tutorials, coaching people on how to claim.
[link removed]
Shimeon Lee joined U105 radio to discuss the situation [[link removed]]: “We have seen an explosion of people claiming for these hidden disabilities… It’s a core issue about fairness. People are willing to give this priority to people with severe physical disabilities but they don’t want the system to be misused.”
Paying for the paperwork: how internal bureaucracy is expanding at TPR
Jonathan Eida returns to the TPA blog with another in-depth analysis [[link removed]], this time turning his attention to the Pensions Regulator (TPR). Jonathan explores how TPR’s size and remit have expanded in recent years, the impact on businesses and taxpayers, and what should be done to improve the situation.
As Jonathan writes: “Businesses must navigate a fragmented system involving multiple regulators with overlapping responsibilities, creating additional complexity, regulatory burden and uncertainty… Consolidation would create a clearer and more coherent framework, providing businesses with a single prudential figurehead and reducing regulatory duplication across the sector.” Have a read of Jonathan’s analysis in full here [[link removed]].
Non-job of the week
I thought we’d do something new (or old depending on how long you’ve been subscribed to this newsletter) for our War on Waste section this week, (re)introducing: Non-job of the week.
As you might have guessed, non-job of the week showcases absurd jobs that you’re paying for. This week’s entrant is an ‘Inclusion & Talent Programmes Manager [[link removed]]’ currently being recruited by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. With a salary of up to £43,200 if you’re appropriately qualified, the role includes playing “a central role in shaping how inclusion and talent are understood and delivered across the organisation” and “using EDI reporting, Pay Gap data and People Survey results to understand trends”. Essential requirements include being “someone who genuinely cares about equality, diversity and inclusion and can bring that to life in a practical, credible way.”
Your taxes hard at work…
Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy the bank holiday weekend
Benjamin Elks, grassroots development manager
The TaxPayers' Alliance © 2026 – Unsubscribe [[link removed]]
Message Analysis
- Sender: TaxPayers' Alliance
- Political Party: n/a
- Country: United Kingdom
- State/Locality: n/a
- Office: n/a