Comments on: Charities reap the whirlwind

By: Steve Tierney

Steve Tierney — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:39:06 +0000

I understand where you’re coming from, Tony, and I’m sure in some cases you’ve hit the nail on the head. But tarring them all with the same brush is counterproductive. Perhaps you think I’m trying to shield charities from the necessary cuts? No way. I’m just pointing out that amongst the baddies and signed-up Looney left there are some really good charities doing really important work – cheaper and better than the Big State ever could. Yes, charities should raise their own money. Yes, if the State got out of the way then private individuals would probably do more and donate more. But – I’d much rather a charity doing something that a bunch of officials in a council office – particularly if its better value and better outcomes.

By: Steve Tierney

Steve Tierney — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:33:18 +0000

I’m the chairman of a charity which receives NO public funding and isn’t looking to and a trustee for another (Homestart) that gets some. I get paid for neither post, I’m voluntary. In case you think this makes me biased I’m also a business owner and Conservative Libertarian. I think I have a pretty balanced view on this issue. I’m not a big fan of ANY money being donated by the authorities from the taxpayers purse as I feel its beyond the remit of the State. However, if a charity is merely doing outsourced work the authority would have to do anyway – but doing it better and cheaper – then it seems like common sense to me to go that route.

By: Mr A

Mr A — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:46:55 +0000

Apart from the sheer amount of money that heads their way, I am sure a fair bit of the thinking towards cutting money to charities comes from the existence of the “fake cahrities” – the likes of Alcohol Concern and ASH who are funded to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds by the State whilst receiving next to nothing in the form of voluntary donations. I feel sorry for the smaller charities who do genuinely good work but really, perhaps it’s in their best interests to distance themselves from the likes of ASH who really do give charities a bad name and I am sure are behind much of the desire to see funding to such organisations cut.

By: Roland Gilmore

Roland Gilmore — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:37:44 +0000

I think we need to get this so called government support into perspective. Surely 20% of that 33% ( “1 in 3 pounds”) comes from tax relief on donations from those who pay income tax. Is the proposal to abolish this relief? Of the other 13% that government apparently shells out; does this include money paid to not for profit organisations such as housing associations who provide care home accomodation for elderly people who can not care for themselves at home?

As a member of the largest voluntary organisation in the world (The Society of St Vincent de Paul), I can confirm that no government money has ever been given to our particular charity; to my knowledge. We draw our inspiration from christian spirituality and of course, our goverment does not fund faith based charities unless, it appears, that faith is Muslim.

Our main objectives include the relief of poverty in it’s many guises. From my experience, all too often we are picking up the bill for the failure of government agencies to provide the most basic help that most people assume the state is providing.

The category of people the state will help became more and more restrictive under the last government to the point where only the most incapacitated, “Category A”, people are now helped.
Personally, I’ve been hearing these noises about “harnessing” the voluntary sector from politicians for years but they are misinformed if they think the voluntary sector can fill the void they appear to be creating. Reliant as the SVP are on voluntary donations, our financial resources are constantly stretched as it is. I think we need more than a wishy-washy policy statement to see what they actually intend; sector by sector.

By: Graham Eardley

Graham Eardley — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:16:56 +0000

Fat chance we have got of the Condem government of doing anything to reform the charitable sector remember Dave Cameron’s speech about Charities “They should be regarded as the first sector not the third sector”.

In fact come to think of it the proposed Big Society Bank is anything but a libertarian solution to funding problems facing charities.

There is too much overlapping in the sector which the need to address first

By: Jamie

Jamie — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 12:54:55 +0000

47% of charities in the UK have a turnover of less than £10,000, are mainly run by volunteers and often receive no government subsidy.

There has been a growing bifurcation of the charity sector – between the larger, ‘third sector’ organisations that the Centre for Social Justice suggest in many cases have become ‘an arm of the state’, and the smaller, local charities who are mainly run by volunteers.

There is a huge diversity amongst UK charities, and it’s worth bearing this in mind when having this conversation.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:15:16 +0000

Steve, that’s too rational an approach to take with these fuckers. Your logic doesn’t work on charities, because they’re basically run by commies right: they think they have a right to our money, no right thinking person could possibly agree to them getting one penny from the central coffers! You call them “nominally private”, but in reality as Wallace is pointing out, they basically *all* have this “poisoned mindset”. We’ve gotta fuck ‘em, cut ‘em off completely, and after we’re done, of course we’ve got to make sure not one bit of their poisonous work is done by their friends in the bloated local authority! What on earth are you thinking?! The market will short this shit out – invisible hand, big society init.

By: Tricia Gurnett

Tricia Gurnett — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:31:39 +0000

I resigned as Trustee and Director of a small local charity last year, having been one of its founders twelve years ago. The main reasons I gave up were two. First, the charity had stopped fund raising, except for tiny efforts like a few collecting bottles in pubs, relying instead on grants from major national charitable trusts where available, and government and local authority grants. Second, in order to obtain the grants we had to jump through all kinds of politically correct hoops, which I found tedious and infuriating.
I am pleased to say that the charity which gets the major part of my voluntary effort now is one of the few, as said above, which do not take money from the government. It is the RNLI, and we are immensely proud that the huge cost, £380,000 every single day, of providing the lifeboat and lifeguard service around the coast of Britain is raised entirely from voluntary contributions and legacies.

By: GhostOfCharlesII

GhostOfCharlesII — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:31:36 +0000

Is Mr Tierney a charity employee? I think we should be told.

Thank you, Mr Wallace, for the post. Looking forward to the end of this so-called ‘charity’ work.

By: Jabba the Cat

Jabba the Cat — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:21:20 +0000

The bulk of the charity industry is overdue for a cull away from the public teat after the years of ZaNuLab at the public purse strings. There will, as a consequence, be drop in the number of charities as reality bites and the public retain their money to spend on more worthy close at home causes.

Welcome to the world of blogging Mr Wallace, and, keep the white text on the black background as, I for one, find it quite soothing on the eye. For the rest of the whingers, get down to Specsavers and get an eye test!