Former editor of the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore, has commented on Kate Andrews' appearance on Question Time in his weekly column:
There is no more frightening experience of British culture than having to appear on BBC Question Time for the first time. Although the programme expresses our love of free speech, it also draws on our traditional enthusiasm for other sports, like bear-baiting and bare-knuckle fighting. I first went on the show about 30 years ago, when I was in my twenties, and was terrified. So imagine my sympathy last week when Kate Andrews, of the Adam Smith Institute, was invited to appear. She had bigger obstacles to overcome than I did in the Eighties, because she is even younger than I was then, is American and was up against Ken Livingstone.
Kate is a friend of my children, and so, as a grizzled veteran of such combats, I warned her how Ken, under the guise of south-London geniality, would find time to patronise her sex, insult her nationality, and make himself out as the moderate and her as the extremist. But I had failed to predict the full extent of his effrontery. On the programme, Ken explained that it was not Islamist extremists who set off the 7/7 bombs in London in 2005, but Tony Blair’s policy towards Iraq which “killed 52 Londoners”. The actual bombers “gave their lives,” in Ken’s view, and “said what they believed”. At the same time, by pretending that he wanted “boots on the ground” in Syria from countries all over the world, Ken persuaded a significant proportion of the audience that he was the one who was truly tough on terrorism.
To her credit, Kate saw through this at once and interrupted him (a brave thing to do on one’s first Question Time) to point out succinctly how morally vile he was being. Perhaps it took a bright young foreigner not to fall for the old scoundrel. We British too often mistake a creepy chappie for a cheeky one.
For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Head of Communications Kate Andrews: email@example.com | 07476 915072. Commenting on the Health Committee's report, Head of Communications and Research Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute, Kate Andrews, said:
Despite sugar consumption falling over the last two decades, the government still insists on involving itself in every nook and cranny of our day-to-day lives. It’s not consumers, but the Nanny State, that needs a set of rules to rein in its excessive behavior.
A “centrally led reformulation programme to reduce sugar in food and drink” will put the government at the helm of what we consume daily. The Department of Health’s bureaucrats lack the qualifications to determine the sugar measurements that belong in each kind of food; and they are one step away from being given the authority to ban outright products they deem too unhealthy for consumption.
Furthermore, taxing sugar is regressive, and the poor will be most painfully affected by the price hike. There is little evidence that taxing sugary food cuts down on consumption rates; it simply forces the low-paid to shove out more at the supermarket, further distorting their cost of living.
The government is meddling in decisions that are best left to parents and families.
Notes to Editors:
The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, libertarian think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.
Kate Andrews, Head of Communications at the ASI, has had her comments from BBC Question Time featured in a BBC News article. She was responding to Ken Livingstone's comments on the 7/7 bombings.
Conservative Cabinet Office minister Matt Hancock, who was also on the panel, said Mr Livingstone was letting IS and other violent militant groups "off the hook" while Kate Andrews, from the Adam Smith Institute, said he was "accepting their excuses".
Kate Andrews, Head of Communications at the Adam Smith Institute, has written for City AM on how the Paris attacks have effected the US presidential primaries.
The 2016 US presidential race has been dramatically altered by the Paris attacks. An election that just weeks ago was dominated by whether the Obama administration’s policies should be advanced or repealed is now defined by an ever-changing, and increasingly dangerous, international climate.
Head of Communications at the ASI, Kate Andrews, has had her comments from her appearance on BBC Question Time featured in both the Daily Mail and the Independent. She was responding to Ken Livingstone's remark that the 7/7 bombers "gave their lives" in response to the British invasion of Iraq. In the Daily Mail:
Comedian and former Labour aide Matt Forde described Mr Livingstone’s remarks as ‘shameful’, while panellist Kate Andrews, from think-tank the Adam Smith Institute, accused him of ‘accepting their [the terrorists’] excuses’.
In the Independent:
Mr Forde accused him of “accepting the terrorists’ propaganda”, while fellow panellist Kate Andrews, a researcher at the Adam Smith Institute, said he was “accepting their excuses”.
Head of Research at the ASI, Ben Southwood, wrote an article for City AM on why Osborne's u-turn on tax credits was the right decision, despite the fact it might make him look weak.
This time round Osborne has been lucky. A £27bn windfall from lower debt interest payments and higher expected tax revenues—whose exact provenance we are still waiting to discover from the Office for Budget Responsibility—made it easy for him. This may not happen again, and we should be wary of what Osborne or his successor might do in 2020 when the tax credits system is rolled into Universal Credit.
Rarely is a u-turn encouraging, but in this case it's heartening to see a government rethink such a damaging switch, even at the cost of looking weak.
Head of Research at the ASI, Ben Southwood, gives his take on the Autumn Statement in this article for Economia:
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has not been kind to George Osborne over the years, repeatedly revising down growth or tax revenues expectations in ways that made the chancellor's budgets just look bad. He had to cut further or faster than he wanted just to stand still. But before the 2015 Autumn Statement the Prime Minister's right-hand man was handed a £27bn present, allowing him to fulfil all of his budgetary dreams at once.
Sam Bowman, Executive Director of the ASI, has had his comments on the Autumn Statement featured in City AM.
This is the right decision on tax credits and we applaud the chancellor for changing his mind. Tax credits are the right way of doing welfare, encouraging people into work and topping up the incomes of the working poor.
But now that they have been protected, we should reform the system by making it less complex and automatic, just as PAYE taxation is run.