I have become one with the blogosphere.
Ministers will today announce a £40m bailout for charities dealing with the effects of the recession, but the lifeline is a fraction of the sum the government was urged to provide at crisis talks last year.
So aye, regular readers of this blog will know I'm a massive fan of Devils Kitchen's campaign against fake charities, those organisations which reside in the Charities Commission website, but only stay in business due to moneys from the government, thus, are Government Agencies, and the rage we feel when they are quoted in news stories supporting and lobbying the government.
Letters From a Tory covers the story here
If charities are to perform their role properly in the absence of government interference, it is essential that they feel no ties to anyone other than the people they help. Giving them taxpayers’ cash is totally incompatible with this aim and crosses the fine line between supporting charities and controlling them. Giving them additional donations may seem like the right thing to do but once this money has been received the operational independence of these charities no longer exists. The sad reality of what you have done is that these charities can no longer claim to be servants of the people because they are now indebted, morally and financially, to the British government.
and Behind Blue Eyes suggests that the public be allowed to decide on this sort of thing.
But if massive government intervention is one of the options, we should at least be able to have our say in the matter. If voters want rolling nationalisations, then let them vote for it. If Brown has the best policies to get us through the recession, then let him stand on a manifesto to push them through. If people would prefer a more measured, affordable approach then they will vote against Brown’s party.
Can we have an election now and fix all this? Please.
Capitalists@Work raises the issue of how does the government decide which charities get bailout money.
Moreover, are the ones that need help not already proving they are not good at managing the money?
This made me think about boobs. Everyone loves boobs, babies, men and women too, tits are great. So when they get cancer people donate lots and lots of money to help those poor breasts. Prostates on the other hand are dirty wee things that live up your ass, they don't have many fans. But whilst men don't generally get breast cancer, they do get prostate cancer, and that kills about as many men as breast cancer kills women.
Prostate cancer charities get a fraction of the amount of voluntary and publicity that breast cancer charities do, The Times covered it a few years back. So in situations like this, I reckon there's a good case for the government giving money to specific charities.