Charity is inadequate

Today the Guardian reports that the government plans to allow people to donate to charities directly from cash machines, as part of a series of proposals to help define their ‘big society’ (amusingly, the Guardian style guide says that until the Tories adequately define their ‘big society’ concept – the concept upon which they claim they were elected – it must appear between inverted commas).

I’m completely opposed to the idea of a big society. For a start, I think that transferring state functions over to the voluntary sector will give charitable organisations too much influence, and those organisations are not accountable to the public. They also may not have to follow the same strict equality laws that a government department would. So for example if a community centre is run by a local church instead of the council, they might not want people of a certain sexual preference to be included, or the fact that it’s in a church might put a lot of non-religious people off. Once they have influence, are they likely to give it up? In addition, the voluntary sector will not ensure that those services are properly distributed, in fact I think those areas where people have more free time (ie the wealthier areas) will have more charitable organisations, and the poorer areas where the services are needed most will be neglected. In short, some things are the responsibility of the state.

That’s not all though, the majority of charities I know of also carry out duties that I consider the state’s responsibility. Take the NSPCC for example. They’ve been running an advertising campaign over Christmas to raise money so that they can help stop child abuse. They run a service called Childline which abused children can ring to ask for help. This is absolutely something that the government should be doing, something so important shouldn’t be left to a charitable organisation whose source of funding could go dry at any moment, and who do not answer to the public in any meaningful way.

There are other things that the state should be doing too. Every day we see charities looking for money to help people in Africa survive, or to tackle homelessness. Imagine how much more effectively those objectives could be achieved if they were done at the state level. As it is, charities do just enough that people think the system is working well, without actually solving the problem. They serve to appease the conscience of the privileged rather that to help those that need it in any effective way. It’s like giving an aspirin to someone with cancer.

So you can take your ‘big society’ and shove it up your arse. It’s hopelessly inadequate.


3 Responses to Charity is inadequate

  1. Kate Harris says:

    Absolutely I agree entirely. In addition – according to the Guardian the government want people who’ve given charity to be on TV et cetera. Giving to charity should not be an opportunity for people to crow about how great they are, it should just be a normal part of daily life for those who can afford it. The fact that 8% of the population give 47% of charity donations is disgusting. Charity should not be optional and it should be normalised not heralded as this great circus of egos. People who earn enough money to give, SHOULD GIVE, they should not be heralded as incredible people just for behaving like decent human beings.

    On the other hand, the one thing I would say is that some charities being separate from state can be good because they can criticise the government and campaign for change – Christian Aid who I used to work for, only take 30% of their money from government because they need the freedom for their advocacy work.

    But if we lived in a well governed state we certainly wouldn’t need domestic charity, and might not even need overseas charities either.

    • grammarking says:

      //Charity should not be optional and it should be normalised not heralded as this great circus of egos. People who earn enough money to give, SHOULD GIVE […]//

      In other words, progressive taxation. Can’t say I disagree.

      I agree that some charities should be separate from the state but only because what they do isn’t a state function. So for example, the Humanist Society of Scotland is a registered charity, but I wouldn’t say that the state should be doing what it does.

      Here’s another problem with charity: the giver decides where the money goes, even though they have no expertise in that kind of field. Imagine if you really needed a kidney transplant, and someone came along and donated their kidney, on the condition that they decide what surgical instruments get used during the surgery. You’d insist that the surgeon decided, so why do we let the giver decide on the allocation of much-needed resources on a societal level?

  2. AlexMagd says:

    When I was at the BHA a couple years ago the big worry was how much the Labour government was outsourcing random services to third sector organisations – charities and the like. The danger was exactly as you described – unaccountable religious organisations running rehabilitation projects etc, providing support with a dash of dogma. I’m terrified, if not that surprised, that Cameron and co want to take it further. :-S

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: