Cuts 'destroying big society'

#1
I have a couple of questions / points regarding this headline and article seeing as its top of the BBC website.

BBC News - Cuts 'destroying big society' concept, says CSV head

How does giving 470 million to charities make them independance from state money - surely this creates dependance.

My other point: There are approx 170,000 charities in the UK, ( How many charities are there? | National Council for Voluntary Organisations ). No doubt most were set up with good intentions but now are a bit like quangos have outlived their usefulness and consume most of their donations on running costs, therefore depleting the much needed funds for those in need.

Is it time we had a bonfire of charities?
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
So a woman who's career has revolved around extracting govt money (and council money is government money) and been rewarded handsomely for doing so criticises the new government because they won't be giving so much. If they're charities why are they state/council funded at all?

And the "Big Society" is a Big Pile of Pants, soiled, and not in a good way
 
#3
There are certainly one or two which are being used as vehicles for tax evasion, look at this for example:

http://www.tonyblairsportsfoundation.org/sports/


Lots of money going in, but very little paid out. Income £430K disbursements £73K.
 
#4
There are certainly one or two which are being used as vehicles for tax evasion, look at this for example:

http://www.tonyblairsportsfoundation.org/sports/


Lots of money going in, but very little paid out. Income £430K disbursements £73K.
What's worse it has charitable status
The Tony Blair Sports Foundation, charity registration number 1132599
Blair has a £5 million per annum lifestyle, he could afford to fund the foundation out of petty cash :-x

stinker said:
Is it time we had a bonfire of charities?
Yes, and the Charities Commission should be overhauled too!
 

dizzy.chick

Clanker
Book Reviewer
#5
I work for a charity now that has no state funding and it is in the minority. There is a big problem with service delivery charities where over time they have become dependant on this revenue stream. I dont think the issue is so much that the money is being withdrawn, we all knew it was coming, the issue is that Charities are being expected to do so much more- this is a huge increase in what is expected of them but with less and less funds be these donations or public money.
Most charities are already very efficient with back office functions so it is hard to see how they will manage to take on more with less in the kitty.
 
#6
If the aims and purpose of the charity is worthy, it will get enough funding from private donors and collections to function.

FAR too many 'charities' are nothing of the sort and are merely a tool to avoid tax.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#7
If the aims and purpose of the charity is worthy, it will get enough funding from private donors and collections to function.

FAR too many 'charities' are nothing of the sort and are merely a tool to avoid tax.
Very true, many are big businesses look at the income on the charity commissions website.
 
#8
Or doing something the state wants doing but is a cheaper option than doing it itself or getting a private company to do it.
lot of homeless projects and other care providers fall into this.
the so called "voluntary" sector
 
#9
Anyone who walks through Westminster nowadays has to beat the 'Charity Muggers' (Chuggers) off with a stick.
These are young, enthusiastic and otherwise unemployable media studies and surfboarding graduates who are on commission for the number of well meaning citizens they can sign up for direct debits for the charity of the week that is employing them.

Now, I have no objection to Joe Citizen giving up some time to wave the collecting bucket around (I do it myself on occasion) but these mercenaries really annoy me. If they think that their charity is deserving of money, then instead of badgering me for it, take out the facial piercings, get a haircut, have a wash, get a job, and then they should feel free to hand over their own wages.

Simples?
 
#10
Or doing something the state wants doing but is a cheaper option than doing it itself or getting a private company to do it.
lot of homeless projects and other care providers fall into this.
the so called "voluntary" sector
Its too easy to forget that charities used to perform the functions that are now in the hands of local government, childrens homes, old peoples homes and most of the elements of what we call "social services" were once performed by voluntary organisations. IMHO they did a much better job then than these so called "professionals" do now, and with significantly less resources.

If you want an example to compare it with, just look at hospices.
 
#11
Its too easy to forget that charities used to perform the functions that are now in the hands of local government, childrens homes, old peoples homes and most of the elements of what we call "social services" were once performed by voluntary organisations. IMHO they did a much better job then than these so called "professionals" do now, and with significantly less resources.

If you want an example to compare it with, just look at hospices.
I think your find thats a touch rose tinted glasses tbf and a lot of small goverment bullshit.
hospice's work well but always struggle for cash Funding Boost For South West Hospices | News | NHS South West
and do get some nasty evil tax payers money.
The idea that welfare and social care can be delivered donations and the generous rich is libertarian bullshit.
strangley they never suggest defence should go the same way (ok some american gunnuts theink the should have the right to own apaches and main battle tanks etc.)
 
#12
I think your find thats a touch rose tinted glasses tbf and a lot of small goverment bullshit.
hospice's work well but always struggle for cash Funding Boost For South West Hospices | News | NHS South West
and do get some nasty evil tax payers money.
The idea that welfare and social care can be delivered donations and the generous rich is libertarian bullshit.
strangley they never suggest defence should go the same way (ok some american gunnuts theink the should have the right to own apaches and main battle tanks etc.)
The transfer of child services and protection from amateur but rather worldly wise matronly ladies of a certain age in the 60's to a class of bright young 'professionals' with Degrees in child psychology and childcare but often barely out of nappies themselves was not exactly a stellar sucess, was it?
 
#13
better than leaving them in the hands of priests though.
massive change in society and expectations
 
#14
I think your find thats a touch rose tinted glasses tbf and a lot of small goverment bullshit.
hospice's work well but always struggle for cash Funding Boost For South West Hospices | News | NHS South West
and do get some nasty evil tax payers money.
The idea that welfare and social care can be delivered donations and the generous rich is libertarian bullshit.
strangley they never suggest defence should go the same way (ok some american gunnuts theink the should have the right to own apaches and main battle tanks etc.)
You aren't denying that despite being run as charities, hospices are the epitome of care, with extremely dedicated staff, and despite receiving some cash from NHS resources are very well run. How did we survive before the NHS was created? Not everyone died at 30 because there was no state healthcare system! If you let the state run anything the first thing that is created is an empire of bureaucracy, just look at the NHS over the past 15 years for an example of waste and bureaucracy.
 
#15
in a word bollocks the US spend way more per head on healthcare and still fail to provide a universal service.
hospices are small things doing one thing very well. Scale up to the size of a large hospital and suddenly you need adminstrators and managers possibly not as many but some.
trusts and the internal market etc were all bullshit ideas. The idea of targest was a good one just not thought through enough.
I happen to like the nhs as do many people who have to use it can't see bupa running it any better.
 
#16
in a word bollocks the US spend way more per head on healthcare and still fail to provide a universal service.
hospices are small things doing one thing very well. Scale up to the size of a large hospital and suddenly you need adminstrators and managers possibly not as many but some.
trusts and the internal market etc were all bullshit ideas. The idea of targest was a good one just not thought through enough.
I happen to like the nhs as do many people who have to use it can't see bupa running it any better.
Dont take the thread off topic by bringing the US healthcare system into it. The thread is about what is happening in the UK.

No the hospices do many things well, and for another example of charities doing things very well dont forget the RNLI, which does not receive government donations, yet still manages to perform a nationwide coastal rescue service, 24 hours per day 365 days per year no matter what the weather conditions are. Staffed mostly by volunteers.

When the functions of Childrens social services were performed by volunteers with years of experience behind them it was far better, at least we didnt get staff not attending children in the home because they were dirty, and ultimately lets examine the happenings in Doncaster social services, one department and at least 7 unexplained deaths of children while being listed as "at risk" by Social Services, not much in the press about what went wrong yet, but another example of the "professionals" failing in their duties AGAIN.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#17
It also depends on the aims of the charity. I belong to the Navy Records Society. This is a charity dedicated to publishing documents in book form. So (for example) you can read a lot of Admiral Cunningham's (WWII fame) letters and instructions. The charity is essentially run by volunteers and the bulk of the income comes from membership fees. Of the 170,000 charities mentioned by the OP, you'd have to filter out this sort of charity - its a specialist organisation that doesn't compete with other charities, is very cost effective and achieves its (very limited) objectives.

That said, the 'volunteering' aspect of many charities has gone and they've recruited expensive layers of management to run more like a conventional business. In some cases these layers of management are creaming off money in wages that should be paid out to what the charity is supporting.

Again, as has been pointed out, other charities are vehicles for tax avoidance.

Maybe we should redefine the legal definition of a charity far more tightly so that charities focus on the people/groups/problems they were created to help.

Wordsmith
 
#18
in a word bollocks the US spend way more per head on healthcare and still fail to provide a universal service..
Common myth. You can walk into the ER of any US hospital and they will treat you, and to a better standard of care than the NHS lottery.


in a word bollocks the US spend way more per head on healthcare and still fail to provide a universal service.
hospices are small things doing one thing very well. Scale up to the size of a large hospital and suddenly you need adminstrators and managers possibly not as many but some.
trusts and the internal market etc were all bullshit ideas. The idea of targest was a good one just not thought through enough.
I happen to like the nhs as do many people who have to use it can't see bupa running it any better.
The NHS is a big con.

You can't opt out of paying for it so it is basically protected from competition.

If you could opt out and instead put that money into a private scheme, it would be cheaper than what you pay for the NHS and the take up rate would be I suspect rather high.

Knowing that it has a captive audience and no risk of competition allows the NHS to be woefully inneficient and beaurocratic.
 
#19
but thats er treatment and debatalbe if its better than NHS treatment not the same as comprehensive healthcare
gps drugs etc etc
Us healthcare is very expensive and admin heavy.

indivdualy you could get a better deal than the NHS while young and healthy get old and crocked up or get a chronic problem watch insurerers head for the hills.
Charitys targeted to do specific things will always do better than a large service provider at the one special thing they do.
not sure how old style child protection systems worked so can't really argue with you their.
 
#20
but thats er treatment and debatalbe if its better than NHS treatment not the same as comprehensive healthcare
gps drugs etc etc
Us healthcare is very expensive and beuracratic
The NHS is now the 3rd biggest employer on the entire planet! 1 in 13 people in this country work for it.

The primary mission of the NHS is to employ its staff now, not care for patients.
 

Similar threads

Top