Well, yes, clearly so

Runnymede Trust boss Halima Begum accused of using it to play politics

Obviously. This, from Halima’s view, being the point of the exercise.

If you believe that government is the solution then working toward a solution means doing politics, for politics is how you influence what a government does.

We can like this or not, claim that charities shouldn’t do politics and all that, but that’s what she and the like are doing.

14 thoughts on “Well, yes, clearly so”

  1. Broad versus narrow definitions. The issue here is that’s its more cost effective, easier, cleaner on the hands, and more fun for a charity boss to influence government to do its bidding than fix issues itself at source. The charity commission definition should be as broad as possible….fix problems or if you cannot alleviate them don’t whine at others to do so…we have marcus rashford for that.

  2. a charity that called for the government to retract the Sewell race report

    That report has them angrily jumping up and down and shaking their fists like the natives chasing Indiana Jones.

  3. The Meissen Bison

    There used to be a distinction between lobbying government to follow policies that support your charity’s activities and using the charity as a platform to pursue party political objectives.

    Since the Blair era, both Labour and Conservative parties have chanelled Labour activists into third sector jobs: Labour in order to provide sinecures to their supporters and Conservatives in the vain hope of buying off their critics.

  4. ‘jgh
    April 9, 2021 at 9:27 am
    You can never buy off the Dane, why on earth are the Conservatives trying to ape the Labour Party?’

    True, jgh. That’s what the Liberal party tried in Western Australia. Thought they could out- green Labor. They’re down to two seats.

  5. It was rather cunning to call a Labour Party “charity” the Runnymede Trust.

    Has the Communist Party ever had a charity called the Berchtesgaden Trust?

  6. Their accounts are rather opaque on the question of funding. Income of £480k,of which £25k came from Government and £110k from a Guardian Christmas appeal. They do not raise funds from the public. It’s tempting to ask “who funds you”?

  7. Once a charity starts to accept government funding it becomes incentivised to make its chosen cause worse rather than better. The worse the problem is, or the worse that they can pretend it is, the more funding they can claim to need.

  8. I cannot think of any large (inter)national charity anywhere that isn’t into politics.
    Their sheer size and mission demands it, really..

  9. ‘incentivised to make its chosen cause worse rather than better. ‘

    Well, yes Stonyground. In a ‘non-profit’, the incentive is for those in charge to lay their hands on all of the profits from fund-gathering.

    In the same way, a ‘non-government organisation’ is naturally extraordinarily well equipped to lobby the government. Thus the government is sucked into supporting things that the vast majority of the taxpayers have no interest in whatsoever. Of course an NGO is also a non-profit, so the above applies as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *