The moment Stonewall started shilling for the Labour Party, it had crossed a line.

Not only is it not a political party, as a charity, it is legally required not to act in a partisan way. It would do well to remember that. And I’m speaking as a gay Tory.

One wonders why you think the Tories should be compassionate to those who have broken the law to stand against them.

“end government funding of all charities with a political agenda”

Seems a reasonable enough position. Why should the taxpayers fund a charity that has a political agenda?

No doubt you’d be shouting from the rooftops if the Conservatives started giving money only to charities that supported their view – perhaps a leftie version of fakecharities.org would spring up, listing all the charities that are meant to be independent but simply parrot the party line.

Oh they’re just a bunch of tiresome, bile-filled, small-minded, swivel-eyed little people.

I wonder if “left-watch” will go into over drive now that there’s a real prospect of their shitty leader and his shitty old etonian-filled front bench not actually winning an outright majority. I hope so. This sort of bile and vitriol can only serve to remind voters what the nasty party still is.

@Paul Sagar

I love the irony. We’re the bad people, and yet you’re the ones unleashing the streams of bile and hatred in every direction.

If you’re nice people, you have a curious way of showing it.

Also, once again, I note that Libcon prefers to indulge in insults rather than addressing issues. I assume it’s because (1) the left has nothing to say on most issues of import, and (2) badly constructed insults are the level of intellectual sophistication the modern left has become comfortable with?

“One of the first acts of any Tory government should be to end government funding of all charities with a political agenda.”

Of course it should be. State-sponsored lobbying is an outrageous waste of taxpayers’ money. For the Government to pay organisations to lobby them, only to agree with said organisations (funny, that), is a totally unacceptable practice and in some cases it even comes close to abusing democratic principles.

One of the first acts of any Tory government should be to end government funding of all charities with a political agenda.

@2,5 – the point is, this means “all charities with a poltical agenda that doesn’t suite current Tory policy”. Which will leave most of the worst offenders from the FakeCharities list, since “patronising fluffy nannyism, but a bit more anti-gays-and-minorities and pro-bible-bashers” is more or less the new Tory slogan.

So which charities have *absolutely zero* political agenda?

It has always struck me that government funding of charities undermines their independence.

If the Tories are in power they represent all not just their supporters. If you look into Stonewall you will find both Labour and Tory supporters who push for their ideas. Its very ignorant of Tory planners to think otherwise.

All this is worrying if we aim to maintain respect for pluralism and diversity.

Charities ranging from think-tanks focused on poverty through to activist groups focused on care of children in need are apt to be critical of policies of the government of the day.

They would be failing in their purpose if they do not articulate their concerns but they stand the high risk of being condemned as political and denied government funding and charitable tax status if they do so when Conservatives form the government.

Organisations like Stonewall, ASH and Alcohol Aware are not charities.

They are not funded by individual charitable donation like a real charity, they are principally funded by Government (sometimes having been established by government) with money the government have appropriated as taxation. As soon as a charity accepts money from public funds, they become beholden to the state and their soul is, therefore, contaminated. Charitable giving is one of the acts that lifts a human being at a spiritual level and state funding of charities demeans this noble act.

The above organisations only have charitable status for tax reasons and because it has helped the authorities to conceal the fact that they have used our money to pay people to lobby them. But they are, in fact, quangos.

And the first thing to do is to get rid of all of the quangos, whether they have charitable status or not.

I guarantee noone will notice they’ve gone.

“the first thing to do is to get rid of all of the quangos”

ALL of them? No matter what they do or how well? And who gets to decide if an organisation is a quango? The same people who get to decide a charity is ‘political’, no doubt…

I see that the site is railing against the “equality agenda”, but then has the cheek to highlight a JRF report about poverty. Compassionate Conservatism = Of course we care about the paupers and other unfortunates, just as long as there’s no mention of vulgarities like the need for equity and fairness.

Also, I find it amusing that as a gay man, and as a Tory, I must know nothing about “LGBT issues”.

I would have thought it would given me at least something of an insight.

“As soon as a charity accepts money from public funds, they become beholden to the state and their soul is, therefore, contaminated. Charitable giving is one of the acts that lifts a human being at a spiritual level and state funding of charities demeans this noble act.”

So you reckon if a playgroup gets a grant from the council to run a homework club, its soul is contaminated? Really?

I’d just note that closing down most charities might be a key libertarian aim (I’m learning a lot about libertarian policies this week), but it certainly isn’t Tim Montgomerie’s – he writes extensively about how he thinks the government should give more money to charities which he thinks are doing a good job.

Hi Martin,

Some evidence to support your claim that Stonewall has broken the law would be appreciated – it is not actually against the law yet to criticise the Conservative Party.

Can someone let me know Stonewall’s Labour bias?

(apart from the obvious praise they deserve for civil partnerships and anti-discrimination policy)

These are the most expensive fee-paying schools in Britain:
http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2009/11/the-ten-most-expensive-public-schools.html

Just suppose it is argued, with supporting evidence, that such fee-paying schools adversely impact social mobility and increase the inequality of income and wealth distribution in Britain.

Suppose further that the OFT has found several of these schools have engaged in anti-competitive practices to charge higher feees than would have prevailed in a freely competitive market, as in this call:

“The Office of Fair Trading has found that, during the period from 1 March 2001 to June 2003, 50 fee-paying independent schools (each a Participant school, together the Participant schools) infringed the prohibition (the Chapter I prohibition) imposed by section 2(1) of the Competition Act 1998 (the Act) by participating in an agreement and/or concerted practice having as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the relevant markets for the provision of educational services.”
http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/ca98/decisions/schools

Would such considerations justify revoking the charitable tax status of these schools?

So you reckon if a playgroup gets a grant from the council to run a homework club, its soul is contaminated? Really?

Yes, of course.

Why should the benefactors originally involved in establishing and supporting the playgroup continue to do so when it is now funded by the council and, (because it can exert power over the group by threatening to withdraw its grant) is effectively run by and in the control of the council.

As soon as a charity accepts state funds, it is no longer an independent charity but is, to a greater or lesser extent, an arm of the state. It inevitably becomes dependent on the funding and is therefore tainted by it.

And there folks, in comment #19, we have a stone-cold example of Why Libertarianism Makes You Stupid.

18. Bob b. The change of polytechnics into universities with the consequential reduction in evening and part time study has had a major reduction in social mobility. The fact that able craftsmen have great problems in finding an educational establishment which teach degree level subjects in the evening is a major barrier to them becoming engineers and scientists.R Mitchell, R Chadwick, Barnes Wallis and J Lovelock all benefitted from an education provided in an evening, which enabled them to work during the day.

18 – no because neither these schools’ impact on overall social mobility, nor funnily enough their involvement in a price fixing cartel impact on the qualifications for charitable status.

On the other hand, it is expressly contrary to these rules for charities to engage in party political activity.

If charities are acting in breach of the Charities Act, then there ought to be consequences. Otherwise the whole area of charity law is pointless.

“On the other hand, it is expressly contrary to these rules for charities to engage in party political activity.

If charities are acting in breach of the Charities Act, then there ought to be consequences. Otherwise the whole area of charity law is pointless.”

And, again, let’s have some evidence that Stonewall are in breach of the law. The Charities Act does not make it illegal to criticise the policies of the Conservative Party.

23 – I have seen no specific evidence that they have. I was responding specifically to Bob’s point on public schools. The point is that *if the allegations are true* then the charities are in breach of the Act. *If Bob’s allegations are true* then the schools still aren’t in breach of the Act.

As soon as a charity accepts state funds, it is no longer an independent charity but is, to a greater or lesser extent, an arm of the state. It inevitably becomes dependent on the funding and is therefore tainted by it.

So, with Gift Aid, that’s EVERY charity funded by UK taxpayers, right?

@21: “R Mitchell, R Chadwick, Barnes Wallis and J Lovelock all benefitted from an education provided in an evening, which enabled them to work during the day.”

As did the Nobel laureate Sir Peter Mansfield FRS, who failed his 11+ exam and became an apprentice book-binder at 15:
http://www.magres.nottingham.ac.uk/~mansfield/

Too many of the polys which became universities in the early 1990s shortly thereafter dumped part-time and evening courses in technical and science subjects and went in for (less expensive) arty and cultural courses which the polys thought were the essential hallmark of universities. The famed and esteemed models of Imperial College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology were all brushed aside.

In the early 1990s, I could take a range of part-time and evening A-levels in many science and social science subjects at my local further education colleges but not any longer.

In the run-up to the 1997 election, Gordon Brown was pushing the idea of a University for Industry on the web to try to fill recognised widely recognised gaps in workforce skills. The outcome:

“A failed government scheme to offer UK university courses online has been branded a ‘disgraceful waste’ by MPs. The e-University was scrapped last year [2004], having attracted only 900 students at a cost of £50m. Chief executive John Beaumont was paid a bonus of £44,914, despite a failure to bring in private sector backers. The Commons education select committee called this ‘morally indefensible’ but the government said the e-University project had ‘improved understanding’.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4311791.stm

According to this bar chart in The Economist for 24 August 2006, Britain is especially well-endowed with low-skilled young people compared with most other major European economies:
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7843638

@24: “If Bob’s allegations are true then the schools still aren’t in breach of the Act.”

Quite so. But a registered charity going public with criticism of government policy relating to income redistribution and social mobility is at risk of being dubbed partisan political and thereby denied government grants and threatened with losing its charitable tax status to force it to keep quiet.

And Conservatives deny a disparity of treatment compared with fee-paying schools, which is fairly obvious to most other folks. C’mon.

Nobody’s likely to bring a prosecution against Stonewall for engaging in overtly party political behaviour.

It strikes me as odd that it’s behaving in such a self-destructive way however. We’re only a few months away from a Conservative government, and Stonewall is busy building enemies amongst those who will soon control its major source of funds.

It’s not so much the quasi-legality of Stonewall’s behaviour that bothers me, as the self-destructive stupidity.

And Conservatives deny a disparity of treatment compared with fee-paying schools, which is fairly obvious to most other folks

What disparity of treatment do you mean? I’d have said that ‘charities should not breach the provisions of the Charities Act’ was a reasonable and uncontroversial view.

There is, indicentally, an obvious risk of apparent conflict of interest if a charity that depends on Govt funding for its existence makes political attacks on the opposition – the Charities Commission are extremely hot on charities needing to maintain the impression that they are not party political as well as the reality.

Again, source source source. Where is the “party political behaviour” from Stonewall. Do we expect them to say “well, they say homophobia is a myth, but that’s OK”.

I remember my school (registered as a charity, meaning they get to steal some of our taxes) held an event where the speaker openly criticised the Labour government. Was it breaking the law?

as for #19, surely the whole idea of “registered charities” is anti-libertarian? In response for limiting charities’ liberties in particular ways (eg no partisan political behaviour), the state grants them official status and allows them to claim tax back on donations. If the charity behaves in a way incongruent with the Charities Act, the government can take these special privileges away.

Neil @ 20

And there folks, in comment #19, we have a stone-cold example of Why Libertarianism Makes You Stupid.

Neil, why do you never engage in argument and try instead to deal in one-liner put downs that really aren’t very good?

OK If I’m too stupid to debate with, how about Nick Cohen, who makes an identical point to mine in the Guardian.

The state does not wither or even shrink when it pays charities to do its work. It merely decentralises the provision of services while expanding the centre’s command and control into new areas of public life.

In 2007, thinktank Civitas produced a report which revealed the growing dependency of apparently independent institutions. Save the Children, Oxfam, Shelter and the British Red Cross received between 30% and 70% of their money from government. Barnardo’s was 78% state funded, Action for Children 88%, while the National Family and Parenting Institute was almost a fully owned subsidiary.

Interestingly, he concludes.

The election of a Cameron government will accelerate the process.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/15/charities-prison-reform-nick-cohen

Now Neil.

Engage.

Why is he not correct? And don’t say because he’s stupid too……..

I did ‘engage’, if you’d care to check. And once again – who appointed you as moderator?

@29: “What disparity of treatment do you mean? I’d have said that ‘charities should not breach the provisions of the Charities Act’ was a reasonable and uncontroversial view.”

That is the issue.

The fee-paying schools with their better teacher-pupil ratios achieve a wholly disproportionate share of entry places at Russell Group universities. The demonstrable consequence of that is to reduce scope for social mobility:

Try this illuminating LSE research study on factors influencing social mobility in Britain:

“Comparing surveys of children born in the 1950s and the 1970s, the researchers went on to examine the reason for Britain’s low, and declining, mobility. They found that it is in part due to the strong and increasing relationship between family income and educational attainment.

“For these children, additional opportunities to stay in education at age 16 and age 18 disproportionately benefited those from better off backgrounds. For a more recent cohort born in the early 1980s the gap between those staying on in education at age 16 narrowed, but inequality of access to higher education has widened further: while the proportion of people from the poorest fifth of families obtaining a degree has increased from 6 per cent to 9 per cent, the graduation rates for the richest fifth have risen from 20 per cent to 47 per cent.”
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm

“[In 2004], a report from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) revealed that Britain came seventh from bottom in a league table of staying-on rates for 19 countries. Only Mexico and Turkey had significantly lower rates of participation for this age group. Italy, New Zealand, Portugal and Slovakia have marginally lower rates.”
http://education.guardian.co.uk/gcses/story/0,16086,1555547,00.html

All that is OK providing a registered charity doesn’t actually campaign about it because campaigning would likely get dubbed as unacceptably political.

C’mon.

When I fed the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why are the poor hungry, they called me a communist.
–Dom Helder Camara (archbishop of São Paulo)

Of course, charities have the right (or even a duty) to criticise the Government of the day. If the Government of the day (Labour or Tory) does something idiotic that it adversely affects the work of the charity then surely it must be within the charities remit to speak out about that? If the GOTD announces a policy that the charity can see that it will promote homophobic attacks/cruelty to animals/cruelty to children or whatever, what would you have them do? Say nothing? I would say that silence was equal to tacit support.

No one should be surprised to see the Tories gearing up to stifle dissent at the earliest opportunity. This is what they do in lieu of carefully thought out policy. Write out a half arsed ‘policy’ on the back of a fag packets, then denounce anyone who dares points out the whacking big flaws in it. That is why your average Tory wants the BBC emasculated; the BBC are never ‘biased’ when they point out flaws in policy, they are just doing their job, but Tories hate having their idiotic policies being in ripped apart. Anyone of normal intelligence would learn to stop making idiotic remarks, but The Tories would rather shoot the messenger.

Note to Tories/Libertarians/halfwits:-

I will not bore you with a long tedious list of charities here, God knows I could, let me stick to two:-

Should the ‘Countryside Alliance’ (1121034) and the ‘British legion’ (219279) be disbanded for their attacks on current government policy?

No need to waffle Martin, Pagar or whoever, a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ will suffice.

@35:

The Countryside Alliance probably shouldn’t be a charity, no, since it regularly gets involved in party politics. If it’s not good enough for Amnesty, it shouldn’t really be good enough for the CA or Stonewall either.

As for the British Legion, when has that waded in on party political issues?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481463/Ministers-failed-troops-says-British-Legion.html

So does an attack on the Government mean it should lose its charity status?

34 – I still don’t get it I’m afraid. Public schools are too good, and they are thus damaging social mobility? That’s not a breach of their obligations under the Charities Act, and that’s not a reason why they should lose charitable status.

I can understand a campaign to change the Charities Act (again) and specifically disallow education as a charitable aim. Not agree with it, but understand it. But arguing that private schools should lose their charitable status despite their compliance with all charity law just strikes me as a bit silly.

Incidentally, the requirements under the Act are pretty clear, and not terribly onerous.

However, a charity cannot exist for a political purpose, which is any purpose directed at furthering the interests of any political party, or securing or opposing a change in the law, policy or decisions either in this country or abroad.

In the political arena, a charity must stress its independence and ensure that any involvement it has with political parties is balanced. A charity must not give support or funding to a political party, nor to a candidate or politician.

it is not actually against the law yet to criticise the Conservative Party.

It will be soon if these Tories have their way.

Witchhunt anyone?

It would seem that conhome has conflated “quangocracy” with fair criticism. I’ve just read through there blog – at least redwatch thought they were funny, the wacky right aren’t even trying anymore

Note to Tories/Libertarians/halfwits

No need to waffle Martin, Pagar or whoever, a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ will suffice.

Not quite sure why you think I’m qualified to answer this but

NO.

I’d like to tell you why but I might be accused of waffling.

Pagar, interested in what views you have on my comment at #31, which seems to me the logical consequence of a libertarian view.

Incidentally, I agree on the dangers of state funding of charities, although I think often the practical benefits of such outweigh ideological considerations.

Pagar @ 44

So you do not have a problem with a charity showing support/dislike for a policy of a given Political Party, then good, at least we agree on something. So, can I further assume that it would be wrong, in principle, to withdraw either funding* or charity status from charities PURELY ON THE GROUNDS THAT SAID CHARITY HAS ATTACKED THE POLICY OF THE GOTD?

I find the suggestion referenced in the original post from the Tories and subsequent remarks here agreeing with it pretty repugnant. I find the statement in the OP:

“Conservatives should protect themselves from accusations of being anti-gay or whatever other charge will be thrown by these state dependents by channeling 50% of the saved money to genuinely good causes in that same field of work.”

*I accept that you have genuine and valid objections/concerns regarding ‘State funded’ charities per se, that is a different debate.

tim @ 44

At the risk of waffling……..

I have no problem with independently funded organisations criticising whosoever they wish. The problem that arises with the speaker at the school criticising the government is that the school is not a real charity- it is so only because it wants, and is allowed, the tax breaks.

Contrary to what most here will believe, personal and social responsibility is a big part of libertarian ethos and charitable giving is key to that. Libertarians do not want to see the children of the poor starve in the streets any more than does a communitarian but, unlike the socialist, we have sufficient faith in the essential goodness of human nature to believe that it would not be allowed to happen.

And it wouldn’t.

At the moment the state takes money from us in taxes and makes the decisions as to which charities get it. By doing so, it effectively controls the policies of those charities (in some cases it even instructs the charity to lobby for policies to soften up public opinion for laws it intends to introduce).

Imagine how different the climate would be if it were to give us all our money back in the form of vouchers that we could individually give to the charities of OUR choice.

Where would you give yours? Stonewall or Save the Children?

Jim @ 45

For ANY government to use the threat of withdrawal of funds/status to force anyone into silence is the very essence of a fascist state.

Agreed.

That is why they should not be allowed to fund them in the first place.

“Can someone let me know Stonewall’s Labour bias?”

Well if my fellow readers over at pink news are to be believed it goes soemthing like this ….

Labour need to hand out some equality sweeties to one section of its tame clientele – we gays.

Hasn’t got the stomach for the fight for full marriage equality so comes up with civil partnerships.

“Hang on” say some of said tame gays – this isn’t full equailty, this is second class state recognition – let’s not be tame any more and criticise labour.

Labour run to state sponsored “Charity” called Stonewall and say:

“Quick, quick – as the “independent” voice of your community please give us some evidence that most gays only want civil partnerships and not full equality” – and (Sotto Voce) “Ooh and your fund could do with a boost”.

“Ooh look what we found on coffee table” cry Stonewall – ” A report that shows 110% of all gays want Civil parnerships and not marriages”

Ta-dah!

#46

Sorry, I wasn’t clear, I meant the second half of my comment at #31 rather than the first half! Nonetheless it’s an interesting answer.

One of my problems with your analysis is that it implies that the state is a monolithic entity – it isn’t – and that there is no democratic input into it – again, whilst our system isn’t perfect, it does allow for collective decisions about what to fund, to some extent. A purely market-driven system of charitable giving would probably, in Britain, mean that animal charities had far more than they needed, but leave substantial gaps in adult services. Currently the expectation is that whilst not enough people want to give their take-home pay to ameliorate adult suffering, it still needs ameliorating and there is a loose consensus around government funding that.

(I also have some doubts about your premise that most libertarians wouldn’t allow children to starve on the streets; based on recent threads I think you and the more consistent libertarians probably wouldn’t, but many would, and many would feed & clothe them out of charity if they were white British children with a firm grasp of atheism, but not if they were children from Islamic backgrounds!)

As to your question at the end – I wouldn’t give mine to either (I don’t currently donate to either Stonewall or Save the Children), but given a choice between the two I’d donate to Stonewall.

I’d also add that in my experience, the problem with government grant funding of charities isn’t usually government actively bullying the charity into doing what it wants, but of the charity self-censoring itself because it’s worried (sometimes needlessly) about jeopardising government funding.

@40 Sunny

“it is not actually against the law yet to criticise the Conservative Party.
It will be soon if these Tories have their way.”

Very mature. Out of interest, which government was it that banned protests in Parliament Square? Or arrested members of the Opposition who were simply doing their job? Or outlawed taking photographs of police officers? Or brought in laws that meant councils could snoop on any of us for just about any reason they felt like?

But yeah, you’re right – it’s the Tories that are the enemies of free speech.

Pagar @ 47

I fully accept that you believe that no charity should recieve funding, the point being that given that we do have State funding (rightly or wrongly) should the GOTD threaten to remove state funding from those charities merely because they speak out against that Government?

Pagar @ 44

‘Contrary to what most here will believe, personal and social responsibility is a big part of libertarian ethos and charitable giving is key to that. Libertarians do not want to see the children of the poor starve in the streets any more than does a communitarian

..and they wouldn’t’

But what if they do? What if all round the Country young children ARE starving in the streets after the welfare State has been disbanded? What if a welfare free London ends up looking like any other welfare free city of camparable size and make up?

Quite apart from cutting the carbon footprint of those who are forced to fly to Asia for a pre teen blow job, what will you actually achieved?

And the South American style death squads that we may need to reduce the child population? State provided or charity run?

If we are lucky, we might not need it though.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

Mark @ 51

Are you saying that the Tories would not done the same? Look at the OP. The Tories want to cut Stonewall and redirect the money to silent charities. Free speech?

This is just another example of how the Tory party has not changed one jot. It is still the nasty party, and always will be.

The fact that they think the election is in the bag is making all the brownshirts come out into the light of day.

Jim @52

Thanks for the link, mate, but does the story of that tragedy not perhaps indicate to you that there is something very wrong with the way we are currently doing things?

should the GOTD threaten to remove state funding from those charities merely because they speak out against that Government?

Once again. No.

Tim @49

One of the main drivers for selecting a charity (apart obviously from its purpose) is the degree of its efficiency. What proportion of the total resources are used in fulfilling the remit against the proportion that is used in running the organisation itself?

What you find is that, when public money is injected into charities, a huge proportion of that money is spent attempting to justify the expenditure of the money itself. Of course organisations need to account for themselves but, once charities have become used to a regular dose of public money, they very often end up using most of their critical energy thrashing around the various funding sources looking for more revenue streams.

Like junkies looking for their next fix.

They lobby, they respond to departmental initiatives, they network with each other, they press all the necessary beaurocratic buttons. They have whole departments ticking the boxes required to secure the next tranche of dosh and then more departments writing reports to detail how the spending plans were implemented.

And all too often they forget what they started off trying to do in the first place. And the children aren’t saved after all.

Pagar @ 55

You won’t get an argument from me that the current system is perfect. Good grief no, but on the other hand, it is a hardly a motivation to suggest the entire system should be scrapped and replaced with a system based entirely on charity. This proves to me that there are cracks in the system as it is, and those cracks require shoring up and examined. However, a system based entirely on benevolance is, IMHO bound to have wider cracks and gaping holes too, and often when that charity is most needed i.e. now during a downturn and at Christmas time too.

(this story happened in May last year, but you see my point)

a system based entirely on benevolance is, IMHO bound to have wider cracks and gaping holes too

I’ll probably ruin my libertarian credentials on this site by saying so but, actually, I agree with you.

In a rich first world country, there has to be a state safety net to ensure nobody starves etc and that children are properly cared for. However I do maintain that the more organisations that can be released from the dead hand of the state the better.

With apologies for the anecdote, I recently did some consultancy work for a small quango- a training and development subsidiary of a Regional Development Authority. In order to stay solvent, two of the four staff were fully employed making applications for more grant funding.

The mission statements, the press releases, the endless politicking- it was all bullshit. None of them could remember what they were actually trying to achieve but they all knew that if the funding stopped they would be out of a job. So, they carried on, pretending they had a purpose.

Honestly, Kafka could not have imagined it.

Pagar @57

I’ll probably ruin my libertarian credentials on this site by saying so but, actually, I agree with you.

Hmm, I wonder if that tells you more about the ‘Libertarian’ movement that it does about you. I have said before and I say again, I get the distinct impression that the so called ‘Libertarian’ movement is little more than a group of rich , white, men who object to paying taxes to keep a system of Government that they have benefited hugely from.

Surely any true Libertarian would have been able to find a ‘Stateless’ Country by now? Somalia’s government practically collapsed in the 1990s and must surely be a prime destination for those craving freedom from the State and taxation. Not too much health and safety or daily recommended salt intakes, recycling in Mogadishu, I would wager. Apperently, ‘direct democracy’ is practiced off the coast by Somilains who believe that guests within their waters ‘should share and share alike’

With apologies for the anecdote, I recently did some consultancy work for a small quango- a training and development subsidiary of a Regional Development Authority. In order to stay solvent, two of the four staff were fully employed making applications for more grant funding

Pagar @ 57

er, sorry I idented to comment on your main point.

With apologies for the anecdote, I recently did some consultancy work for a small quango- a training and development subsidiary of a Regional Development Authority. In order to stay solvent, two of the four staff were fully employed making applications for more grant funding.

The mission statements, the press releases, the endless politicking- it was all bullshit. None of them could remember what they were actually trying to achieve but they all knew that if the funding stopped they would be out of a job. So, they carried on, pretending they had a purpose.

I cannot believe that any decent person would object to training and development. It is of course a nonesense that they should have to fight for funding. That appears to be a by product of silly politicing than any need to farm out such activity. So, if they could have their budget ring fenced instead of these funding rounds, then no doubt they could get on with the job.

So, if they could have their budget ring fenced instead of these funding rounds, then no doubt they could get on with the job.

But Jim, there was no job.

The “stakeholders” they were mandated to help didn’t need it. All they wanted was to be left alone to run their businesses without interference.

And so the quango staff spent all their time and effort filling forms in to prove they only drank fair trade coffee and paying corrupt public relations consultants and parasitic website designers to maintain their profile- so that there would be enough grant funding coming in to pay their salaries for another six months.

You will think I’m exaggerating. I’m not.

And of course Somalia is not an example of a first world minarchist state but a third world anarchy. Not entirely a fair comparison.

But at least in Somalia it would not be illegal for me to have smoke in my own property.

Perhaps not worth going there for but…….

Pagar @ 61

And of course Somalia is not an example of a first world minarchist state but a third world anarchy. Not entirely a fair comparison.

Hmm, how would you tell the difference? What happens when you remove the trappings of the first World from First World Countries, I wonder? Where is this model for what you want? What I am I looking for? I am I looking at soweto or the squatter camps of South Africa, the favelas of Brazil perhaps or the fleshpots of Thailand? Surely you are not suggesting we could all live in small self governing communities like Monaco, if only the shackles of the State be removed? Wouldn’t the First World’s poorer just sink further down the pole and coalesce in shanty towns?

Do you really think that Old Holburn’s ‘let them eat cake’ pronouncement for the Bangladeshi people is likely to provide the solution to that Country’s considerable woes?

Perhaps the reason that they live on stilts on the sea is nothing to do with the fact that they live in abject poverty and live a hand to mouth existence. Maybe the Government taxes them too much and the restrictive planning laws means that they cannot buy good housing?