Tories, Saving Money for the Rich, and Contracts for public services

Suddenly this is back on the agenda in a bigger way than ever before. Why? It's not as if there hasn't been a move in this direction for a number of years now, with greater 3rd sector involvement in delivery of commissioned services at local regional and national level. The answer is obvious when you think about it: Tories. Whatever misgivings anyone may have about New Labour's move to the right, encouragement of PPP (that's private/public/partnerships), PFI (that's Private Finance Initiatives) and the involvement in the voluntary and community sector (Hey, I'll go with the flow and use VCS) in delivering public services on the cheap, Labour are amateurs compared to the Tories.

This week is Tory conference time, and the recession has really allowed those old tories to come out of their shells. It has given the right in the Tory party the chance to propagate their policies of Government's 'lighter hand', of LESS public services (for the poor) saving MORE money (for the rich). Hey, we wouldn't want to alienate the bankers would we? So what do the Tories come out with this week - first cuts to benefits for disabled people, secondly, cuts to pensions, thirdly cuts to public services. Of course these are slightly dressed up. Let's have a look.

1. Cuts to benefits for disabled people - well no this isn't what it is at all, is it? This will be a policy to encourage disabled people into jobs, and discourage them from living off the state - a good thing surely? NO: this may sound reasonable, but in real life this isn't what happens. and what would happen. Disabled people to be assessed (by who - oh god no, not the same idiots who screw up mobility allowances surely - Oh yes) whether the CAN work. If so they get a job. Simples. Except if you have a disability that flairs up only part of the time (there are millions of examples), then how are you judged? Except what jobs, in times of high unemployment ARE you going to get? Er... yes, this is simply a way of cutting benefits for the most vulnerable members of our community. WELL DONE YOU TORY BASTARDS.

2. Cutting pensions: no no no no no, there won't be cuts to pensions, you just won't get one until you are 66, instead of 65. Wait a minute, that means a year's less pension for everyone... several thousands pounds less for older people. Another group of the most vulnerable people in our society. WELL DONE AGAIN.

3.Cuts to public services: NO, we just want the voluntary sector to deliver services, because they'll do them SO much better than the public sector and SO much cheaper (shhh, don't tell anyone that bit). So what we will have is services delivered on the cheap, with costs kept as low as possible to ensure contracts are won. How are these costs kept low? Well it won't be bureaucracy (got to pay those CEOs somehow), so it will be done in two ways: by subsidising services through other funds: Yes that's what you gave your donation to charity for isn't it? For delivery of public services. Wait a minute isn't that what you paid your tax for? And by keeping wages low. Which a lot of large unscrupulous charities will be able to do because their staff aren't unionised and there are no collective agreements in place and because there will be no shortage of cheap labour (Hey, there's all those cripples looking for jobs, they'll be cheap, and we'll look great!).

Most sickening of all is the stupidity of people in senior positions in the VCS who think there's nothing wrong with this. They love the 'contract culture', it makes the voluntary sector 'modern', 'effective' and 'efficient'. Silly fools, can't you see you are being conned? The Tories can't get elected if they're seen as being too right wing, but they can get elected if they manage to con the british public into believing their crap. They are trying to con people into believing they are 'new' Tories, 'caring' Tories. But efficient, responsible Tories, not like bumbler Brown. I'm no Labour supporter (I'm a socialist, obviously) but even I can see what a horrible option the Tories are.

So where does that put the suck-up sector? ACEVO and their like? Are they Tories themselves, or are they stupid? The fact they employ a series of policy officers with no 'at the coal-face' experience gives you no confidence in them, the fact that they spend so much time aggrandising themselves doesn't help either.

People in Britain want good public services. They want good health services, good education services, efficiently managed hospitals, schools, universities, prisons, nurseries etc. If anyone bothers to analyse services to actually see what is good and what is bad, there is one thing in common: they are well managed, they are responsive, they are accountable, they are run and delivered by committed staff. What difference does it make what sector they are in? Very little, except that it is obvious services get worse when costs are cut: when staff are underpaid and demoralised and there is no top down commitment to the service but a commitment instead to low costs, to the bottom line. Unfortunately that's the route successive governments have taken: and the joke is that thousands of billions of pounds have been siphoned off into the private sector who proceeded to blow it all in their banks that they couldn't manage.

The VCS has been forced into a position where it has to play the game to some extent, but it doesn't have to cheer along on the sidelines, and it should draw a line somewhere. The fear that some dodgy newly-developed Public Interest Company ( a private organisation in disguise) will get a contract if the VCS doesn't bid should be, in many cases, dismissed. In the long run the shit WILL hit the fan: for example the poor over-priced health services being delivered by PCIs won't last the pace. Does the sector really want to join in this service suicide? I look forward to the day when a charity running a prison (or whatever) has to publicly explain how so many prisoners escaped/were abused (or whatever). No doubt they will moan it was lack of funds that caused the problem.... HELLO-O!! That's why you got the contract, fool.

Running a charity is political (whatever the Charity Commission say). Back two paragraphs ago I said people want good services. When chasing a contract Charities' trustees should ask themselves: Can you really do it? Will it benefit the public? Will it benefit society? Will you have to compromise your values to do it? Could someone else do it better? Will it benefit the Charity? Are you sure?

Summer Events for Disabled People's Organisations (DPOs)

This summer, as part of the Building Our Futures project, six events are being organised for DPOs in London. They all range around employment issues in DPOs, in line with the reseach part of the project, and are organised in response to the research - meeting identified needs.

They include three network events - one for workers, one for Chief Officers and one for chairs of management committees (Trustees), and three training events - managing performance, managing sickness and managing Access to Work. So far the events are proving popular, but there are still some places left, so if you want to book a place go to the website at www.toosh.co.uk/bof.htm and download a booking form. Information is there in Word and PDF format, and also in EayRead.

All events are fully accessible, and we will attempt to meet all attendees access needs if they book before the end of may (that's not to say it can't be done after that date).

What DO partnerships add to democracy?

As reported in Third Sector In a speech to NCVO members Simon Jenkins questioned the voluntary sector's role in a democratic society, in terms of what they contribute to, in particular, local democracy. As someone who sat on a Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) for a number of years, and was Chair of a Community Network and vice-Chair of the LSP, I have to say that in a number of ways, he has a point. The problem with local democracy has been, for some time, the lack of participation of local people, with turn outs at local elections commonly being as low as 20%, and research showing particularly poor participation by 'excluded groups' - black and minority ethnic people, refugees, disabled people, older people, etc. The idea of including voluntary and community groups into local partnerships was clearly to improve community involvement with local planning and development, but there are fundamental problems with this. Whilst not wishing to 'do down' anyone involved in a community network or an LSP representing voluntary/community groups, who elected them? I know I was elected by the Community Network Committee, mainly because no one else wanted to do it, and as CEO of the local CVS I felt I ought to (as did my management committee). Obviously I tried my best to represent those I was there to represent, but then again, who were they? Other members of the committee, in many cases professional voluntary sector workers themselves. Everyone with very good intentions, but really, not very democratically elected. And when we tried to involve new good community activists into the Community Network structures, they, quite reasonably, ran a mile when they realised what was expected of them (and how dull the whole thing was).

The other side of this argument however is that the elected councillors were usually only elected by a couple of hundred people who were often the local middle class. Many of whom were friends of the local councillor or friends of friends etc, and contributed very little to local community life. So they aren't very representative either.

However, as proven by what happened in Islington (for this is where I experienced this) the advantage of democracy is that when the Council is led by an unpleasant twit (and their equally unpleasant sidekick) who appears to be only interested in advancing their own career at the expense of local people and their services (sidekick ditto) local people are free and able to vote them out. As they did. (Boy did we celebrate).

So what is the answer - probably, as Simon Jenkins intimates, improvements to local democracy - investment in local democracy, and simply, better systems. The changes implemented in recent years (getting elected mayors, paid leaderships etc) have actually served to lessen local democracy, giving greater power to fewer people. The introduction of LSPs might appear to reduce this power (and probably does via implementation of LAAs) but does this result in an increase in democracy?

Chuggers

Well done Intelligent Giving who have publicly exposed how unpleasant and badly delivered and managed 'face to face fundraising' (chugging to you and me) is in the real world, and boo to the PFRA who have attacked Intelligent Giving, saying that their methods were 'unfair', 'unprofessional' and 'damaging'. The responses on the Intelligent Giving website from fundraisers is something to be seen. Have you ever heard such a bunch of self-serving parasitic twerps defending lousy practice? No, nor me.

Fundraisers inevitably defend themselves by showing how much money is made from what they do. Many charities, they claim, wouldn't survive without this sort of fundraising. (Not that they have a vested interest of course). But is this so? I have seen some statistics that show that chugging raises money, but I have never seen NET statistics with all the costs of the fundraisers and the agencies etc taken out. Never, either, have I seen figures showing how much charities who don't use chugging do worse... And strangely, never have I seen statistics showing how a chugger who uses aggressive tactics in breach of the law (as described by IG and as experienced on a daily basis by most of us) raises more money than someone behaving in a socially acceptable way. (THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN! shout the fundraisers. What world do they live in?) Nor have I seen anything convincing that shows that this sort of behaviour doesn't damage a charity's reputation.

Get over it. People don't like being chugged. It is NOT the same as being asked to buy a copy of the Big Issue, it is not the same as being asked to put a few bob in a collector's tin outside Sainsbury's. It is exactly what it seems - an aggressive approach to get money in the street, invented entirely because people have got wise to the unpleasantness of those other fundraising methods,and mainly learned how to ignore, direct mail and direct telephone fundraising.

So here's a challenge to fundraisers: be inventive and come up with a method of fundraising that doesn't want to make me, and millions like me, want to punch you in the face.

Sponsored moustaches

It's a completely screwed up world we live in where the only way people will give money to charities is by somebody else doing something pointless. I agree also that it's a strange world where some of the money you might give pays for that other person's holiday, or even their entry fee to run a marathon. A friend has asked me today to donate money to a prostate cancer charity her partner is supporting by.... growing a moustache. The campaign is at http://www.movember.com/ I am happy to support a prostate cancer charity. I am less happy to support proliferation of moustaches in the world. In the same way, I am not happy to pay for someone's sponsored trek, by paying for them to pollute the world by flying to Peru. On the other hand I'm going to donate, as I've donated to other people running marathons and things. I wish they'd stop though, and just asked me to donate to a worthy cause because they need the money, not because they want to grow a moustache, run 26 miles or whatever...


Meanwhile, I thoroughly recommend THIS website:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Moustache

Botham's walk for Leukaemia Research

I was listening to the radio this morning and heard Ian Botham (sorry, SIR Ian Botham, or just 'Beefy') talking about his walk for Leukaemia Research. It is fantastic what he's doing, and I (amongst many of you) am happy to give something to support his work to help the work LR do. As Botham says, seeing all the kids in the cancer wards in Great Ormond Street is enough to give you a different perspective in life - or should be. Unfortunately I have.

He actually said this, though, in response to the interviewer's question about how this 'put into perspective' all the stuff going on in the City and in the banking world. And he is absolutely right - but for me it brings up another issue, and a different way of thinking: the banks are losing billions, the government are investing billions in saving banks because of their irresponsibility in managing their businesses, and their 'lack of confidence' - in each other (for goodness sake - if they don't have confidence in each other why should anyone else, and why should the government have confidence in bailing them out with billions...?).. anyhow, whilst that is going on Botham is humbly very grateful for the £30,000 he raised through his walk in one day.

I am certainly not belittling his achievements or his efforts (it should be clear I admire him for it) but I am absolutely sickened by a society that throws billions at underachieving, untrustworthy banks, whilst thousands can make such a difference to people's lives. As Sir Ian "Beefy" Botham says - when he started his walks for LR in 1985 "children diagnosed with leukaemia had just a 20% chance of survival. Today it is an 80% chance."

Fantastic work. But what sort of society have we built where this is the only way to make this happen?

Fundraising, confidentiality and fear

I have been involved in a blog debate on the Intelligent Giving website, which started out as a debate about chugging, but moved into more fundamental levels about fundraising, politics, disclosure and downright insults(!). I should probably apologise to one or two people for winding them up, but really, I was shocked by the regressive views being expressed. It amazes me how defensive professional fundraisers seem to be, and amazes me how so many of them believe that by expressing their views on a blog could endanger their job. We'll come back to that in a minute, but I would first like to say something about fundraising.

I've done fundraising for years: 25 years ago I was working in a community centre in camden that would have gone under if we hadn't raised money after the council had cut our funds, and in addition we successfully raised funds for a new family centre for local kids - many of whom were living in "homeless families accommodation" on the estate. I didn't know anything about fundraising at the time, but received excellent advice from Zena Brabazon, who at the time was Chief Officer of Elfrida Rathbone (Camden), who advised me to look at my users in the way that made them the most needy, and "sell" them to funders, donors, companies, or whoever would give us money. She told me to separate the act of fundraising from the act of providing the service: that one thing was worth doing to support the other. But it had no other saving grace.

Since then I have raised millions of pounds for several charities: some who I worked for, some who I was on the management committee of, some as a consultant, and some as a favour. In every case I never felt I was doing a particularly honourable thing, nor a pretty awful thing, but after doing it, I'd often feel like I needed a wash. If people want to give money to charity, good. I strongly believe that giving money to charities is a good thing, and getting the information about charities out so that people can give money (and open and honest information as Intelligent Giving always say) is an honourable thing too.

But fundraising itself is an act of professional marketing, no different to marketing anything else, be it a fizzy drink that causes diabetes, a car that pollutes the atmosphere or a high interest loan that forces someone into poverty. OK I admit that in this day and age its probably the only way some charities survive, but really, in an ideal world is that how you want to live?

When I suggested on the IG website I would prefer a system where an elected government gave state funds (our taxes) to good causes i was accused of being a communist - which is completely bizarre - in that I was 'restricting choice'. Goodness knows how this would prevent people from giving to charities, and of course we have so much choice NOW on how our taxes are spent: on arms for example, on Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley for example... I personally believe in an elected democratic government spending my taxes on worthwhile things. Apparently, these days this makes me a dangerous revolutionary.

The other issue was confidentiality. I was suspicious about posters on the Blog not using their names, but using their aliases. Who are you? I asked. What are your motivations for supporting chugging? I was deeply suspicious they were people working for a professional chugging outfit (yes these guys really exist - they take approximately the first year -often more- of all the money you sign up for with whatever charity they are working for), and were therefore hardly speaking from a neutral viewpoint. But, assuming they were telling the truth (I have no reason to assume otherwise) they were not. They were fundraisers working for a charity, afraid to reveal their names in case they got in trouble.

Apart from the issue of using employers' time (which they didn't seem to be, posting in evenings) I am seriously shocked at this. People working for charities actually scared to reveal their names on a blog discussing charities and fundraising - and they are not even arguing a line that their charities would disapprove of. To propose another 'dangerous socialist' idea: why don't these guys join a trade union? And if there really ARE charities out there where people work in such bad working conditions they aren't even allowed to argue with me on an open discussion board about charity issues - I for one want to know who they are working for - because I for one won't be donating to those bastards.