I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
If you don't understand it's because you've misunderstood the conversation.
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. That isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
Do you have evidence of that for any UK charity? If so then you should notify the Charity Commission.
Reporting any wrongdoing would be a good plan. Unfortunately what tends to happen is that the right make up stories to try and discredit the charity sector so they can promote the interests of private firms. It is an ideological issue, some on the right cannot abide the concept of charity sector. The whole concept of not for profit is alien to them.
I have no issue with not for profit.
I've done lots of volunteering for years with charities and done a lot of fundraising and donating my time and effort. I never took a penny for that I did it as it was the right thing to do. For charity.
Milliband being paid millions isn't acting not for profit. He is taking in the profit. He is rolling in the profit.
Some difficult questions for UK regulator and the government.
Under normal circumstances, I am sure they would go back and run another trial, with the half / full dosage regime, before any thoughts of getting it through.
I'm pretty irritated by the press release strategy, given the bigwig who was complaining to me about Pfizer and Moderna doing exactly that -- his comments seem pretty hypocritical now.
Cutting foreign aid is going to be popular with the public, it was too much to hope that Boris would resist this. In many ways - I'm amazed how long the commitment lasted under Tory governments.
Cutting in one year is going to be particularly difficult because so much of the money is already committed - so it means backing out of existing pledges and projects.
There’s a £1bn that is paid to the EU and another £1bn or so to the UN to hand out (not to specific programmes like UNAIDS, just a slush fund).
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
If you don't understand it's because you've misunderstood the conversation.
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. That isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
Do you have evidence of that for any UK charity? If so then you should notify the Charity Commission.
I don't think the Charity Commission covers Milliband in New York getting paid millions while taking in taxpayer taxes.
So you are saying that it is not a UK issue? Yet you make broadbrush allegations of corruption.
UK Charity Trustees have a duty to ensuring good stewardship of funds. If you have concerns then you can raise it with the charities Trustees, and if not satisfied, with the Charity commission.
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
If you don't understand it's because you've misunderstood the conversation.
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. That isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
Do you have evidence of that for any UK charity? If so then you should notify the Charity Commission.
I don't think the Charity Commission covers Milliband in New York getting paid millions while taking in taxpayer taxes.
So you are saying that it is not a UK issue? Yet you make broadbrush allegations of corruption.
UK Charity Trustees have a duty to ensuring good stewardship of funds. If you have concerns then you can raise it with the charities Trustees, and if not satisfied, with the Charity commission.
I'm saying that ex politicians getting paid millions by charities, which then get millions paid by the UK taxpayers is a merry go round for which politicians are hired because they're capable of keeping the taxes flowing into their coffers not because of any personal market skills of them.
Any charity paying millions to politicians should be recused from receiving taxpayer revenue as a charitable donation from the taxpayer. If the public wish to donate fair enough but not taxes.
'Brown was the third worst PM this country has ever had.'
How far you going back, Doc? You got Lord North on your spreadsheet? Chamberlain? Asquith?
Btw, I was looking at some amusing lists of US Presidents recently, ranking them in order of merit. Naturally opinions vary but there was near universal agreement that the worst was James Buchanan.
His fans will no doubt be pleased to know that he will soon move up a notch.
The nicest human being ever to be US President was surely Jimmy Carter.
But he was a bloody awful president.
Edit - occurs to me that Herbert Hoover was also a thoroughly decent and compassionate human being, far more so than Franklin Roosevelt.
Woodrow Wilson seemed a decent sort.
Jimmy Carter was President while I was in America as a teenager.
He was an idealist, and always had a "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" quality to him. America was in a bad place after Watergate and Vietnam. Carter was necessary to drain that swamp and restore a bit of pride and integrity to American politics. By and large he did.
Wilson... apart from his racism, of course.
Carter was, I think, a better president than given credit for.
Can someone briefly update me on the Oxon full-full / half-full thing. I keep reading snippets on here but it seems to be a very stretched discussion, hard to piece together the responses.
I have no problems with market forces setting salaries in the charity sector. If the charity raises it's money from the market.
If the money is coming from taxpayers that is not market forces involved. Taxes are not the market.
Yes I'm sure Trustees do thing bunging millions to politicians and former politicians is a good use of money, when politicians then bung millions of taxes back to the charities that is a sound "return on investment". Also known as corruption.
Let's cut off the taxes going to the charity and see how long they keep finding politicians to be good value for money.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. All the trustees who I've met are paid £0, except for the odd train fare to attend a meeting. I've never heard of a charity giving money to a serving politician. Most charities receive nothing whatever from taxpayers, unless you're referrring to the tax deduction on privayr gifts (Gift Aid).
There are examples of charities who successfully bid to deliver a service in their area of expertise, but it's a small minority. Most have no connection with the Government, either giving or receiving. Why bash a whole sector because you don't like some examples?
If you don't understand it's because you've misunderstood the conversation.
Absolutely many (especially smaller) charities are genuinely charitable. That isn't what we are talking about.
We are talking about "charities" that entail taking millions from taxpayers and purely coincidentally giving millions to former politicians who lobby to ensure the taxes keep flowing.
Do you have evidence of that for any UK charity? If so then you should notify the Charity Commission.
Reporting any wrongdoing would be a good plan. Unfortunately what tends to happen is that the right make up stories to try and discredit the charity sector so they can promote the interests of private firms. It is an ideological issue, some on the right cannot abide the concept of charity sector. The whole concept of not for profit is alien to them.
I’m not going to get into this debate, but I am heavily involved in one of the more disruptive foundations in the charity world - we are actively seeking to shake up the third sector.
There is a lot of poor management and excessive spending among the larger charities. As with any organisation the further you get from the coal face the more it is a career rather than a vocation
Cutting foreign aid is going to be popular with the public, it was too much to hope that Boris would resist this. In many ways - I'm amazed how long the commitment lasted under Tory governments.
Cutting in one year is going to be particularly difficult because so much of the money is already committed - so it means backing out of existing pledges and projects.
There’s a £1bn that is paid to the EU and another £1bn or so to the UN to hand out (not to specific programmes like UNAIDS, just a slush fund).
I'm not really sure what you're referring to on the UN thing (UK core contributions to UN are 100m ish)- but obviously we already knew we were leaving the EU and budgeted accordingly.
FCDO are freezing spending on new projects because they are screwed. This is a 29% budget cut announced at the drop of a hat on top of an existing c. 12% budget cut from the falling national income.
Ironically having spent a lot of time trying to shove certain projects into the ODA definition - we will probably see the reverse to avoid overspending on ODA by accident.
Comments
NEW THREAD
I've done lots of volunteering for years with charities and done a lot of fundraising and donating my time and effort. I never took a penny for that I did it as it was the right thing to do. For charity.
Milliband being paid millions isn't acting not for profit. He is taking in the profit. He is rolling in the profit.
--AS
UK Charity Trustees have a duty to ensuring good stewardship of funds. If you have concerns then you can raise it with the charities Trustees, and if not satisfied, with the Charity commission.
Any charity paying millions to politicians should be recused from receiving taxpayer revenue as a charitable donation from the taxpayer. If the public wish to donate fair enough but not taxes.
Carter was, I think, a better president than given credit for.
There is a lot of poor management and excessive spending among the larger charities. As with any organisation the further you get from the coal face the more it is a career rather than a vocation
FCDO are freezing spending on new projects because they are screwed. This is a 29% budget cut announced at the drop of a hat on top of an existing c. 12% budget cut from the falling national income.
Ironically having spent a lot of time trying to shove certain projects into the ODA definition - we will probably see the reverse to avoid overspending on ODA by accident.