Bishop Hill Fake charities nervous
Nov 30, 2012 Fake charities The journalist William Shawcross has been appointed the next head of the Charities COmmission, replacing Dame Suzi Leather, the quango queen whose miraculous path to a position of power has been noted at BH in the past. (I think "miraculous" is the only way to describe a move from trainee probation officer to housewife to head of an NHS trust).
Shawcross seems to be a Conservative man, and according to this article on Third Sector Online, his appointment was challenged unsuccessfully by LibDems and Labour. No surprise there. What is interesting is his attitude to "fake charities" - those bodies who use charitable status to lobby for state funding. In the same interview, Shawcross was asked what he thought of this question:
Does he agree with [The Spectator's] analysis about charities’ anti-government stance? "I don’t know yet. But I think there is a very interesting discussion to be had about the way charities relate to government, and are increasingly dependent on governments of left, right and centre.
"Among members of the public who give generously to charity, it’s perhaps not widely understood how many charities have become, probably without any alternative, more dependent on government, and this should be aired and discussed. This country’s charitable history is wonderfully idiosyncratic, going back to the statute of Elizabeth – the whole common law history of charitable giving, the charitable accretion, has been remarkable.
"In that context, charities have always been independent and that independence is a very precious thing." Is it under threat? "I don’t know - I’m on a steep learning curve."
Today, in a new interview in the Telegraph, his ideas seem to have become better formed:
Charities should not become the junior partner in the welfare state; whether or not they provide services funded by Government or indeed receive grants from Government, they must remain independent and focused on their mission,” he said.
“My personal view is that some charities have become dependent on the state.
“And I think that most members of the public, when asked, would say a charity is an organisation funded from private donations, not public funds.
This all bodes well for improvement, but I doubt we will ever see a true separation of government and charities. That is, perhaps, too much to hope for.
Reader Comments (56)
Hilary
I would normally agree with you but you're making some pretty big assumptions about what passes for a Conservative in the UK these days.
Still, on balance you're probably right. Carney could well turn out to be a serendipitous appointment and from what little I know he is almost certainly like to be better than any of the quoted alternatives.
Mike,
I wasn't making any assumptions about U.K. Conservatives, merely speaking of the political environment, so to speak, of Carney's appointment in Canada - and of my perception of his performance of his professional responsibilities prior to and during his tenure ... (along with with some observations of his "pedigree").
My hope is that (what I would describe as) the U.K.'s gain will not be to our detriment over here!
Also I have relatives there who might not forgive me!
"She's off to the governing board of the GMC"
Which is also a fake charity, as it gets no voluntary donations from the public!
I incline to the belief that no single person can ever really turn round something monolithic. I saw successive CEOs of British Telecom attempt to turn the super-tanker - but all they achieved were a few isolated initiatives. Those initiatives might have been worthwhile in their own right but did nothing substantive to cure the company. The Charities Commission has been turned into a monolith because of the way that New Labour turned it into an outpost of the state. Similarly, I think this is rather a balanced view of what Carney can be expected to achieve at the BoE
http://www.cityunslicker.com/2012/12/why-carney-might-not-do-it-at-bank-of.html
i think charieies are just fakes who play on the great british publics good nature these socalled charities use a seedy firm called smee and ford to snoop through probate records to see if they are mentioned in someones will they then have the nerve to contact the executors and try to frighten them into revealing the wills contents also how much are their socalled executives paid and their so called in house lawyers such as victoria smithson and mark goldring of mencap paid and where does the money come from to pay them idont believe that all the money donated goes to where it should go and im sure an investigation by an independent body or the national press would reveal some very interesting results