Why should taxpayers’ money be spent on helping these worthless charities?

Apologies, but I’d like to quote at large the new document to come from the Demos Progressive Conservativism project, authored by Max-Wind Cowie, it explains:

“This is an area of particular concern for modern conservatives.
The Conservative Party has made it clear that its vision for
Britain relies heavily on the voluntary and small and mediumenterprise
sectors replacing government in many areas of public
life – ‘we would enhance the role played by charities, voluntary
organisations and social enterprises in tackling the problems
facing our society’.9 This is a fundamentally ‘progressive
conservative’ approach. It means that we do not reject the needs
of those citizens who are disadvantaged; rather we reject the
notion that government will necessarily be successful in
alleviating those needs. Thus, for progressives within the
conservative movement, charities and community groups take on
a significant role as agents of improvement that are local,
knowledgeable and flexible – and are therefore better able to
meet the needs of the people they serve. But an increased
reliance on charities and community groups requires involvement
in those organisations from ordinary people.” (p. 27)

The document as a whole is little more than 60 pages of Labour said this and that but the Tories – as the new progressives – really will do it. They haven’t even got their foot in the door yet, and they’ve done this. Progressive Conservatism has been reduced to hot air, I’m sorry (and unsurprised) to say…

If they are taking taxpayers money, they aren’t part of any ‘voluntary’ sector.

Brilliant news – a taxpayer-funded charity is no longer a charity

You can see a list of the bigger taxpayer funded ‘fake’ charities here.
http://fakecharities.org/

Any charity that takes taxpayers money to lobby government for more taxpayers money whilst pushing political agenda is not a charity, its a quango.

This is the real cjcjc – comment number 1 was not made by me.
(Even though the apostrophe is in the right place.)

After the meeting, Bernard Collier, Chief Executive of Voluntary Action Westminster said: “It’s hard to see the logic behind this decision, which ends ten years of partnership working with Westminster’s voluntary and community sector. It’s a u-turn in terms of local policy – and flies in the face of the policies of all three main political parties. We’re deeply unhappy with this decision.”

The decision comes shortly after the decision to cut £500,000 from the voluntary sector grants budget.”

I can understand why he walked out.

After all Voluntary Action Westminster seems to have received over £2 million in public funds spending over £1 million on the salaries of it’s employees.

No wonder he was pissed off as he saw the gravy train begin to head out of the station.

In his position, I would have been too.

Well, yeah don, and that is abysmal treatment. But take a look at Glasgow, where a Labour council (amid its meltdown/crisis re leadership…not given the UK coverage it should, given the size of the city, and its totemic status for Labour) has cut grants to voluntary and community organisations by 30%.To add insult to injury, it’s spun off chunks of the council to arms-length bodies, to benefit from their newly granted charitable status and the associated tax advantages: cut the money to real charities and create ‘pseudo’ ones stuffed with placemen, and staff without any vol/com ethos.
Both neo-liberal major parties are talking all kinds of fanciful nonsense about the vol/com sector (besides craftily eliding it into the nebulous 3rd sector, thus trying to put a benevolent gloss on huge for-profit quasi-corporate organisations) but neither will properly even fund full-cost recovery.

Um… isn’t the whole point of charities that they are voluntary? Funding them with taxpayers’ money seems to be missing the point, a little.

Hi Alastair,

“But take a look at Glasgow, where a Labour council (amid its meltdown/crisis re leadership…not given the UK coverage it should, given the size of the city, and its totemic status for Labour) has cut grants to voluntary and community organisations by 30%”

Want to do a guest post / have you got a link to more info about this?

Bloody hell, was sure I’d posted links up this morning for you don.Here goes again.
See yesterday’s Guardian (Society), plus
http://www.regen.net/news/ByDiscipline/Business/login/974666/

http://www.solidarityscotland.org/content/view/709/66/

http://www.glasgowcityunison.co.uk/ (halfway down)

Oh, and Edinburgh’s not immune,nor are the LibDems and SNP ‘clean’ in this regard:
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/39Attack-on-voluntary-sector39-as.6129813.jp

“If they are taking taxpayers money, they aren’t part of any ‘voluntary’ sector.”

By this logic a private company that wins a contract to clean council offices is also no longer part of the private sector, but part of the state.

“Um… isn’t the whole point of charities that they are voluntary?”

No, the point of charities is that they provide services on a not for profit basis. Historically they emerged to provide welfare services prior to the establishment of the welfare state (indeed libertarians always offer their existence as proof that abolishing the welfare state isn’t going to lead to disabled children starving to death). Many – even those who dont have any government contracts – have paid staff doing a range of roles from administration and fundraising to actually delivering whatever service the charity does. Indeed some don’t even use volunteers in any of the areas they operate.

Sometimes the state may wish to provide a service (which, lets face it is the real objection you have here). It can either provide the service itself, employing staff etc, or it can subcontract it. If it subcontracts the service, then private companies or charities bid for the contract. As charities have usually built up a proven track record of delivering services – often to “hard to reach” groups – and have an understanding of the issues involved, they usually win the contracts. Indeed subcontracting services to charities and the private sector is a thatcherite idea, and largely hated by the unions. Its amazing to see “libertarians” oppose it.

“Any charity that takes taxpayers money to lobby government for more taxpayers money whilst pushing political agenda is not a charity, its a quango.”

Usually charities that win contracts have the money ring fenced, and thus cannot use it for political lobbying – only to provide the services stated in its contract. Furthermore, if they arev registered with the charity comission, there are strict rules about the types of political activities and lobbying they can be involved in. They cannot support one party over another, and can only stick to commenting on policies and legislation related to the area of activity that they are involved in. Eg: Shelter can only comment on housing and homeless policy, it can’t express an opinion on the arms trade.

There are, however, the “fake” charities you mention. These are best understood as astroturf organisations created for PR purposes, and shouldn’t be confused with actual charities.

Planeshift @ 12

No, the point of charities is that they provide services on a not for profit basis.

Not my understanding at all.

Lots of organisations provide services on a not for profit basis but the point about real charities (not all those registered with the Charities Commission) is they are funded by voluntary contributions. Altruistic giving should be one of the responsibilities of citizenship and it is to the detriment of the Welfare State that such giving has now become virtually redundant.

If citizen A sees citizen B in distress and gives him what money he can afford both parties benefit from the transaction A feels satisfaction that he could help and B feels gratitude. Humanity is victorious.

If the state takes money from A and gives it to B (whether he was in distress or not), neither party benefits. A is resentful and B believes the payment is his birthright. Humanity has been defeated.