I find myself agreeing with Osborne. I might need a little lie down.
George Osborne has triggered a backlash from charities after he urged companies to defend the economy against their “anti-business views” and those of pressure groups and trade unions.
Well, he’s right. These “charities” are frequently nothing of the sort – merely lobbying groups that are making the most of our very loose definition of charity. They do not do good works; they take taxpayers’ money to lobby the state to impose restrictions on our liberty – and, indeed, being generally leftist they are anti-business. They are the very definition of a fake charity.
So, yes, businesses should stand up to these bullies and Osborne is right to say what he did. Of course, the government could put its money where Osborne’s mouth is and remove all funding from charities with immediate effect. Let’s see how much political lobbying the likes of ASH, CASH and Alcohol Concern can manage then…
Osborne did not name any of the charities that had antagonised him, but his remarks are the latest in a string of comments by senior Conservatives suggesting they believe charities have got too political and leftwing.
They are somewhat late to the party, but at least they got here eventually.
So, now, do the decent thing and stop all taxpayer funding of charities and while we are at it, let’s define properly what a charity is – one that does charitable works. If it does not do good works it isn’t a charity. That way we can remove their charitable status as well.
Charitable status is a joke. Our local U3A is a charity. How the hell do they get away with that? 👿
What is more disappointing is that years ago Osborne and Cameron promised us a “bonfire of the Quangos” and we’ve seen neither that nor a review of Government spending on “charities”
In the case of ASH and Alcohol Concern I am struggling to understand how either qualify even under existing legislation. Both these (and many more besides) and nothing more than political lobby groups,
From Stonyground, the auto fill thingy didn’t work.
“…charities have got too political and leftwing.”
My understanding is that charities are not allowed to remain charities if they get involved in politics. Hence the National Secular Society and the Motorcycle Action Group are unable to take advantage of charitable status because if they did that they would have to stop lobbying the government on the issues that concern them. Since in both cases this is a major part of their purpose, they obviously don’t want to do that. Why outfits like ASH, CASH and Alcohol Concern are allowed to get away with political lobbying while calling themselves charities is a bit of a mystery. As for the fake charities being left wing, seeing as how they are mainly funded by money stolen from the taxpayer, why would anyone expect them to be otherwise?
It is interesting to see the, currently rather left wing, Conservative party desperately trying to look Conservative again now that UKIP are looking as if they might be a problem after all. Weather vane politics at its worst.
I felt it was more than mere coincidence that the former chair of the Electoral Commission should have become Chief Executive of the Charity Commission. It seemed to me that the quangocrats were getting their ducks in a row for the likely EU Referendum.