Peace Tax Seven
The Peace Tax Seven united around a shared goal: to pursue the legal right to conscientious objection to military taxation by challenging the courts.
/Jump to section:
The Peace Tax Seven went to the European Court of Human Rights to claim the right for conscientious objector to have the military part of their taxes diverted to a Peace Fund.
​
They fought for the legal recognition of freedom of conscience as a basic human right to be realised in UK tax policy.
​
They think this is important because:
-
Governments should respect the consciences of their citizens, particularly in the matter of deliberately taking human lives.
-
Society develops morally when governments take heed of public conscience, ie. abolition of capital punishment, excuse from military service on conscientious grounds, abolition of slavery.
-
A Peace Fund would install a measuring scale of the public’s conscience which government ought to find useful. Such a fund would put a moral pressure on government to try harder to find other ways of resolving conflict than using violence.
-
Now more than ever, it is important to bring this moral argument into wider debate.
Seven British citizens, made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that our rights are violated by a tax system which makes us pay for the deliberate killing of other human beings. They regard this as a form of conscription, the same as military service and believe all tax paying citizens should have the right to conscientious objection to paying tax for the military.
​
They are asking to continue to pay all of our taxes, but to have the military part placed in a ring-fenced fund solely for peaceful purposes such as health care, education and non-violent conflict resolution. They have each tried to direct our income taxes to be used for peaceful and non-military purposes. In each case we were denied the right, and each of us has faced a dilemma: either to pay our taxes and so become complicit in killing; or to follow our conscience and break the law by withholding payment of a portion of our taxes. Following their consciences has lead us to court or the threat of prosecution.
​
They object to this financial conscription, and believe that its legal basis is questionable. They are seeking a change of current UK tax policy to allow any citizen who conscientiously objects to paying for preparations for war to divert that part of their taxes to a Peace Fund.
​
They believe that:
-
Our taxes pay for killing people - Many of us don’t even think about it! We may in principle object to war and protest when other people are sent to fight them. For instance one and a half million (by the most conservative estimate) protested in London against the Iraq war and were ignored by the government. But war can only happen because the weapons and the training is paid for by us out of our taxes.
-
If you paid someone to go and kill an enemy, you would be as guilty of murder as the perpetrator. This is recognised in law and morally. Paying for the government’s killing machine is no different.
-
We all bear a responsibility in our society and we should not be made to do something we believe is morally wrong. This is recognised in the Geneva Convention, the Nuremberg Principles and the European Convention on Human Rights.
​
We should not continue letting this happen - When one and a half millions people took to the streets of London in February 2003 to protest at the war against Iraq, hundreds of thousands more signed petitions, attended meetings, held vigils, prayed, wrote letters, emails, dressed up, made banners, role played, lobbied their MP's and made their presence known in every city and town in Britain. The government paid no heed to our concerns and went ahead and executed their war in our name and with our taxes.
The Peace Tax Seven are taxpayers with a conscientious objection to contributing to military expenditure through the tax system. They want to pay their taxes in full, while diverting the appropriate proportion of their tax contributions away from military expenditure and towards peace - building and international development.
In previous years there have been a number of attempts to uphold the right to freedom of conscience regarding military tax expenditure, one (in 1993) involving a future member of the Peace Tax Seven, Brenda Boughton.
​
All of these were rejected by the courts. However, we believe that, since 2nd October 2000, the European Convention on Human Rights under the terms of the 1998 Human Rights Act, has vouchsafed freedom of conscience in a new, direct and specific way. This case is therefore the first time that the right to freedom of conscience has been asserted in these terms, relating to UK tax law on military expenditure. The novelty of the legal situation is the legal basis for this case.
​
In a word, the legal case the Peace Tax Seven are making is that, in principle, UK law recognises freedom of conscience as a basic human right, in such as way as to empower individual taxpayers to deny the use of their taxes to prepare for war. However, current UK tax policy refuses to recognise this right. We believe that this refusal itself breaches UK law. We are seeking a legally binding declaration to this effect by means of a judicial review in the High Court. Such a declaration would place the UK government under the obligation to take further action to resolve the issue.
1. Peace is the only possible future.
War diverts resources from other disasters. Every bomb and bullet kills twice: each has indirect victims, dying in want while the world's wealth is wasted on weapons.
"Clean water and basic healthcare could be available to everyone on the planet for the cost of just one week's armament spending."
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children... This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
"One third, £88 billion, of all HM Government's fixed capital assets belong to the Ministry of Defence."
Conscience FAQs
2. There is no "defence" spending; all weapons foster war.
The UK is on a permanent war-footing. Our tax returns are weapons of mass destruction.
"The UK's possession of nuclear weapons of mass destruction; our stated willingness to use them; our role as the second largest arms trading country, subsidised by taxpayers' money, is a threat to the security of the world."
Conscience FAQs
"How much is spent on the military in the UK? £30 billion by the Ministry of Defence. There is also an element of military spending in other government departments, such as the Export Credit Guarantees Department, ... £27 billion was allocated to Ministry of Defence in the 2004 budget. £37.9 billion is the Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2004-05. ... "outdated" technology becomes worthless in a short time and therefore costs to the country are increased ..."
Conscience FAQs
"How can we persuade the young generation to cast aside the culture of violence when they know that it is on the threat of extreme violence that we apparently rely for security?"
3. Especially today, funding war is waging war.
The nature of warfare has changed.
"The Gulf War ... was fought by professional soldiers using high-tech weapons. Today, conscription is not of our bodies but of our taxes."
Conscience FAQs
"I've done all the demos, written to MPs, prayed for peace. And then they sent me a bill for some tax. Realising that this was effectively part of the proportion they would spend on war and preparing for war, I just could not bring myself to write a cheque. ... Paying a murderer to murder is committing that murder yourself. ... It really is that straightforward."
"It is taken for granted that we contribute taxes for military preparations. This is conscription by proxy because we live in a world where civilian men are no longer required for military service."
4. People start wars, and people can stop them.
A species with brains enough to make bombs has brains enough not to need them.
"The international growth in peacemaking has often gone unobserved. Headlines are not made by wars which do not happen. But in reality, thousands of people and communities owe their lives and existence to the expertise of peacemaking experts, groups and institutions. Today, more than ever, war is never inevitable. Peacemaking, conflict resolution, and international development are better, more realistic, more humane and more cost-effective uses of public tax money than continued preparation for, and infliction of, mass destruction. The Peace Tax Seven are arguing for a legal way of channelling, in creative and beneficial ways, the tax that would otherwise be spent needlessly destroying lives and communities."
Peace Tax Seven joint statement
"If a fraction of the money spent on military preparations was spent looking for the alternatives; training people as peace negotiators; solving the problems which lead to conflict and resolving conflicts before they escalate into violence, we would go far along the road to abolishing war. I think this is a realistic goal, to make war a thing of the past. It only needs for us to break from the habitual mindset that war is inevitable and unavoidable to believe this is so. People are not natural killers. Soldiers have to be trained to make them capable of killing."
5. You can vote, but only for war.
Every major British political party supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"British citizens and taxpayers today are undoubtedly confronted by a combination of institutional secrecy, archaic parliamentary procedure, vested business interests, internal party discipline and superficial media enquiry when it comes to war."
"When a state acts in a way that a citizen considers to be totally immoral then that citizen should withdraw support from the state. Support can most clearly be withdrawn at the point where the state demands taxes"
Roger Franklin
6. Killing is not a party political issue.
"The defining feature about rights, such as the right to life, is that they are absolute."
"Fundamental values and rights cannot be traded off against seeming or real advantages for certain individuals or states. ... each person has an intrinsic value and worth, regardless of their nationality, gender, faith or conduct."
"Conscience is supported by parliamentarians from across the political spectrum"
Conscience FAQs
7. Freedom of conscience is a basic human right.
By insisting on our rights, we are insisting on yours - whatever your views. In the long term, everyone benefits from freedom of speech.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion..."
"Our case is based on a recognised human right - not a political decision, like paying taxes for state or private education, or not wanting to pay for the NHS because you have private medical insurance."
Conscience FAQs
8. Rich governments are often rogue governments.
And even if the last war had been right, the next might not be.
"In an age when the effects of mere "conventional" weapons such as cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells would beggar the belief of our ancestors, I, as a British taxpayer have grave misgivings about how a proportion of my tax is being spent on illegal military activities ..."
"This [2003 Iraq] war was illegal. It violated the UN Charter which allows the use of military force only in cases of self defence or as an action authorised by the Security Council. Pre-emptive strikes have no basis in International Law. This war cost the British taxpayer several billion pounds and thousands of innocent Iraqis their lives."
Since time immemorial, governments have used war as an instrument of policy. In the modern age, using ever more sophisticated means, this has led to the civilian population being compelled to participate in preparing for war, and, increasingly, to become its major casualty. Training has played a key role as fighting techniques and more sophisticated technology have developed. This has meant fewer, more highly trained combatants, and a vastly increased amount of killing.
The Twentieth Century was the age of mass conscription, and the first industrial scale war happened in 1914. In the First World War, the majority of casualties were soldiers. But, in that war, combatants became airborne for the first time. By the time the Second World War started, aircraft were much more sophisticated. Bombing became a major strategic weapon. Civilians became the majority casualties for the first time. That trend has continued to grow.
​
It has been estimated that, in a conventional war of massed armies, 90% of the casualties were military personnel, and 10% were civilians. In modern warfare, this figure is reversed: 90% of casualties are civilians, and 10% are military personnel. For example, the occupying Coalition forces in Iraq have not even attempted to keep count of civilian casualties; approximately 900 soldiers have died. Current estimates suggest an estimated 11,000 civilians.
Mass conscription has now become a thing of the past in western countries. What is really needed most from civilians is their money, in the form of tax. Civilians pay compulsory military taxes, and in non-Western countries they are the most likely victims, but all civilians are powerless to influence the decisions, planning or outcome of any war. The ordinary civilian has paid for each war long before it is decided - on their behalf - who the enemy is, or what the conflict is to be about.
​
But there is an alternative.
​
Today there is a wealth of ideas and practical experience in non-violent resolution and transformation of conflict. Peacemaking, peace-building, peacekeeping, mediation and non-violent conflict resolution are tried and tested alternatives to the resolution of disagreements by mass violence.
The international growth in peacemaking has often gone unobserved. Headlines are not made by wars which do not happen. But in reality, thousands of people and communities owe their lives and existence to the expertise of peacemaking experts, groups and institutions.
Today, more than ever, war is never inevitable. Peacemaking, conflict resolution, and international development are better, more realistic, more humane and more cost-effective uses of public tax money than continued preparation for, and infliction of, mass destruction.
The Peace Tax Seven are arguing for a legal way of channelling, in creative and beneficial ways, the tax that would otherwise be spent needlessly destroying lives and communities.
War tax resistance and the birth of democracy
War tax resistance has a long and noble tradition. In 1202 King John of England raised taxes to pay for a new war against France. As King, John was entitled to raise money from his feudal subjects; but, he stretched these rights to the limit and offended many barons who disagreed with the war. The barons were furious at the waste of money especially when John was defeated by the French. They complained about the way the king was running the country. Fearing trouble the Archbishop of Canterbury suggested they send a list of demands to the King. John had no intention of obeying others' rules and was furious. The Army of God and the Church under the Barons marched on London whose supporters opened the gates. The King fled to Windsor Castle. King John did not want war with the barons and so finally, by the Thames at Runnymede, met them and agreed a list of promises and on 15th June 1215 the Magna Carta was born, one of the most important documents in world history. Democracy was born in England.
Income Tax
The relationship between income tax and war is a close one. Income tax was first introduced in Britain in 1798 to pay for the purchase of fighting men and weapons for the Napoleonic wars. Introduced by William Pitt the tax was temporary and technically has to be renewed every year. It was applied as 10% of income and remained right up to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. A year after Waterloo, Income Tax was repealed but the Conservative Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel reintroduced Income tax in the 1842 Budget speech and it's been with us ever since.
One of the earliest known instances of war tax refusal in America took place in 1637 when the relatively peaceable Algonquin Indians opposed taxation by the Dutch to help improve a local Dutch fort.
The Quakers
Quakers have been and still are at the forefront of war tax resistance.
​
In 1709 the Quakers Assembly refused a request of £4,000 for an expedition into Canada, replying "it was contrary to their religious principles to hire men to kill one another" and during the American Revolution most Quakers were opposed to taxes designated specifically for military purposes.
Property was seized and auctioned, and many Quakers were jailed for their war tax resistance. During the Mexican war of 1846 many Quakers again, refused to pay war taxes.
Henry David Thoreau
​
The most famous instance of war tax resistance was that of the writer Henry David Thoreau. As well as being a philosopher and something of a mystic Henry Thoreau was also very involved in the burning issues of the day and opposed the imperialist and unjust nature of the Mexican War of the 1840's. He refused to pay the Massachusetts poll tax levied for the war, resulting in a night in jail. Someone paid the tax for him - ending his protest abruptly - so he put his opposition in writing and created a document first published in May of 1849 called "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience":
"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right."
In his Autobiography Martin Luther king said of Thoreau's work: "As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest". In the 1950's, the United States Information Service included as a standard book in all their libraries around the world a textbook of American literature which included Thoreau's 'Civil Disobedience,' but a certain Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin succeeded in having the book removed from the shelves.
"Civil Disobedience" is like a venerated architectural landmark: it is preserved and admired, and sometimes visited, but for most of us there are not many occasions when we like to think it can actually be used. Still, although it's seldom mentioned without references to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, "Civil Disobedience" has more history than many suspect.
In the 1940's it was read by the Danish resistance in their struggle against the forces of Nazism, in the 1950's it was cherished by people who opposed McCarthyism, in the 1960's it was influential in the struggle against South African apartheid, and in the 1970's and 1980's discovered by a new generation of anti-war activists.
One of America's most respected writers, Susan Sontag, acknowledged the influence of this small pamphlet when in a keynote address during the height of the Iraq War in New York in April 2003 she wrote:
"Thoreau's going to prison in 1846 for refusing to pay the poll tax in protest against the American war on Mexico hardly stopped the war. But the resonance of that most unpunishing and briefest spell of imprisonment has not ceased to inspire principled resistance to injustice through the second half of the twentieth century and into our new era. The movement in the late 1980s to shut down the Nevada Test Site, a key location for the nuclear arms race, failed in its goal; the operations of the test site were unaffected by the protests. But it directly inspired the formation of a movement of protesters in far away Alma Ata, who eventually succeeded in shutting down the main Soviet test site in Kazakhstan, citing the Nevada antinuclear activists as their inspiration and expressing solidarity with the Native Americans on whose land the Nevada Test Site had been located. The likelihood that your acts of resistance cannot stop the injustice does not exempt you from acting in what you sincerely and reflectively hold to be the best interests of your community".
Perhaps the most famous instance of Thoreau's influence in Britain today is witnessed in the life of veteran war tax resister Roger Franklin who writes:
"Thoreau's argument I find all too appropriate to our situation today and when a state acts in a way that that a citizen considers to be totally immoral then that citizen should withdraw support from the state. Support can most clearly be withdrawn at the point where the state demands taxes". - Resurgence September 1996.
Conscription
​
In 1914, after 20,000 British soldiers died in the first two weeks of the war, compulsory call-up for British men looked increasingly likely. Even in the chauvinist atmosphere of the First World War conscription for the battlefield was resisted until by January 1916 the flood of volunteers was reduced to a trickle, despite social pressure on 'laggards' and 'pansies' by attempts to shame them.
Pacifist members of the No-Conscription Fellowship, set up in 1915, successfully campaigned to secure 'the conscience clause' in the 1916 Conscription Act: the right to claim exemption from military service. Over 16,000 men made that claim. They were required to attend a tribunal to have the sincerity of their claims assessed. Often people who actually sat on the panels, businessmen, landowners, retired military officers and civil servants were intensely patriotic and prejudiced against anyone whom they thought was not.
The Military Service Act 1916 was a turning point in British military policy by providing for exemption on conscientious grounds. British conscription ended in 1919, but twenty years later was resumed when war broke out with Germany again. A total of 60,000 conscientious objectors were sent to prison including the young composer Michael Tippett who served a three months sentence.
Many worked in relatively menial capacities on farms, in hospitals or in social services and some as in the First World War, did relief work abroad with the Friends Ambulance Unit, and, like some non-combatants, on occasions ended up in a battle-zone alongside the military but there were no instances of war tax resistance in Britain.
Financial conscription
​
Since the end of World War Two the ability of a state to wage war has depended less on abundant reserves of conscripts and soldiers and more on technologically complex and expensive weapons systems.
The conscription of financial resources has replaced the conscription of human beings. With the astronomical costs of military preparedness all taxpaying citizens have become participants - financial conscripts - in our governments' military action - legal and illegal, right and wrong - whether we like it or not.
The Vietnam War​
​
During the Indochina War, war tax resistance gained its greatest strength ever in the history of the United States. War tax resistance achieved nationwide and international publicity when the singer Joan Baez announced in 1964 her refusal to pay 60 percent of her 1963 income taxes because of the war in Vietnam. By 1967 about 500 people had signed a pledge to do likewise.
As the increasing horrors of the Vietnam war were brought home to the American public a dramatic shift occurred in the war tax resistance campaign and a few hundred resisters inspired and motivated thousands of other citizens to resist.
​
A committee led by A.J. Muste obtained the signatures of over 300 notables and celebrities including Joan Baez, the poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Dorothy Day, founder of The Catholic Worker, linguistics professor Noam Chomsky, Hungarian Nobel Prize winner for medicine Albert Szent-Gyorgyi and Gloria Steinem, biographer of Marilyn: Norma Jean. They all helped pay for an ad in The Washington Post proclaiming their intention not to pay all or part of their 1965 income taxes time. By 1970 the number of war-tax resisters soared to more than 20,000.
When the beleaguered government in Washington imposed a 10 percent surcharge on phone bills to pay for the escalating costs of its failing war, Gore Vidal, Gloria Steinem, Kirkpatrick Sale and 528 colleagues formed the Writers and Editors War Tax Protest and by the early 1970s the number of phone-tax resisters had swelled to an estimated 500,000 citizens.
Nuclear War​
After the election of Ronald Reagan as US President in 1980 and his call to rearm the U.S., supported by Margaret Thatcher in Britain, military spending increased dramatically. So too did the numbers of war tax refusers who found inspiration in the success of the campaign during the Vietnam years. On both sides of the Atlantic governments had to admit that the number of war tax resisters grew hugely in the 1980's.
The US Secretary of State Alexander Haig said at this time "Let them march all they want as long as they continue to pay their taxes" - unwittingly acknowledging the potency of war tax resistance as a most potent form of civil disobedience.
​
More and more British taxpayers too became concerned at the huge build up of nuclear weapons on British soil - especially the American Cruise Missile Nuclear Convoys that went out by cover of night on British roads with their deadly loads.
Some war tax resisters including Roger Franklin and Quaker Arthur Windsor were sent to prison for refusing to pay the 10% of their taxes towards Britain's possession of weapons of mass destruction; and in 1990 Nigel Wild, a baker attempted to pay his taxes in bread to ensure that they were not used to fund preparations for war. He was imprisoned for 21 days.
​
Roger Franklin, a grandfather from Gloucestershire, has been made bankrupt and also sent to prison twice for refusing to pay his taxes to fund the British government's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Inspired by Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" he has for many years refused to pay his taxes towards the military and asked that it be spent on peace keeping initiatives instead. He writes of his imprisonments "I thought that perhaps the judges were in contempt of conscience".
A national stir was created in America 1981 when Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle urged citizens to refuse to pay 50 percent of their income taxes to protest against the spending of peoples' taxes on nuclear weapons. Letters of endorsement of his stand were made by other religious leaders in Seattle and elsewhere around the country.
In Britain too the retired librarian, Quaker and war tax resister Arthur Windsor created a national stir when he was sentenced to jail for 28 days in HM Prison Gloucester in 1986.
Arthur's case became the subject of a BBC documentary Heart of the Matter as well as making national headline television and radio news. Arthur Windsor's case was also mentioned in dispatches by Denis Canavan MP in his reading in the House of Commons for a Bill on the rights of people like Arthur to have their taxes spent on life affirming initiatives instead of on weapons of death.
War Tax Resistance in America today​
In 1993 Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in an attempt to accommodate individual conscience in instances where a person's religious beliefs may be adversely affected by the government. In the late 1990s three court cases were filed by Quaker war tax resisters using the First Amendment guarantee to the free exercise of religion in an attempt to have penalties against war tax resisters removed and permit them to pay only for non-military programs.
These cases were dismissed in lower courts, appealed, then dismissed again in the Second and Third Circuit Courts. In 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear any of the appeals.
An Act of Conscience made a huge impact after it premiered at the prestigious Sundance Film Festival. The film follows war tax resisters Randy Kehler and Betsy Corner of Colrain, Massachusetts in their struggle which led to them risk losing their home.
​
Narrated by actor Martin Sheen {Apocalypse Now and acting President of the United States} this feature-length documentary chronicles the couple's five-year struggle to nonviolently resist the seizure of their home, in which they are joined by hundreds of supporters from across the country, including noted author and activist priest Fr. Daniel Berrigan and folk singer Pete Seeger. Historian Howard Zinn author of A People's History of the United States wrote of An Act of Conscience:
"In telling the story of two courageous people who were willing to sacrifice their home to declare their opposition to war and militarism, this engaging documentary reminds us of the long and honorable tradition of civil disobedience in this country. Act of Conscience should serve as an inspiration to young people today in suggesting how one can live one's life in defiance of the violence around us."
War Tax Resistance in Britain today​
On 25th March 2003 nineteen M.P's signed the Early Day Motion {EDM 943} stating that:
"This house recognises that Parliament has traditionally acknowledged and protected the right of conscientious objection to military service; and appreciates the increased distress felt at this time of heightened insecurity by those who would wish to register their conscientious objection to being forced to contribute through their taxes to military activity; and thus requests the Government consider providing a mechanism for those who have a conscientious objection to war to have the military part of their taxes spent on peace building initiatives."
In Autumn 2000 the Human Rights Act came into force in Britain, incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. Because the Convention recognises freedom to manifest conscientious objection there will be new opportunities to encourage a change in the law to recognise the right of conscientious objection to paying tax for illegal, unjust and immoral military purposes.
The recent aggressive pre-emptive strikes in Iraq by the "coalition of the willing", has given some tax-resisters new justification for non-cooperation. With Washington and Whitehall operating in open defiance of the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution, some resisters argue that paying taxes could render them complicit in the commission of war crimes.
The Peace Tax Seven
​
In April 2004 seven war tax resisters, known as the Peace Tax Seven, in Britain engaged Phil Shiner of PUBLIC INTEREST LAWYERS to act on their behalf in seeking a Judicial Review of the current laws which make conscientious objectors complicit in killing if they do their civic duty and pay their taxes or make criminals of them if they follow their conscience and refuse to fund war.
How would you react if someone came to your door forcing you to pay for weapons to kill people you'd never met and they did not like?
​
Contempt of Conscience is a project started by Joe Jenkins before he joined the Peace Tax Seven and the ongoing campaign for a judicial review has become a major part of it. In 2004 Joe made a 12 minute short using some of the material he has gathered and interviews with each of the Peace Tax Seven. This was an excellent film which set out concisely the case for conscientious objection to paying war tax. Already it has been a stimulating and invaluable campaigning tool, shown at over 30 schools, and peace and Quaker groups up and down the country. Joe then made a full length documentary, in co-operation with Clarity Productions and it is currently in distribution.
​
Peace campaigners who have seen the film have been extremely impressed and voted it an invaluable campaigning tool.