I want to ask a simple question. It's this. What would happen if The Times succeeds in its aim so clearly summarised by Rod Liddle in his article for The Times this morning where he says:
Most of the world's poverty today is occasioned by bad governance and a predatory Third World elite, not by capitalism.
I think the Oxfam staffers know this. I think they know this and it makes them hot. Never give these people any of your money.
(My emphasis added).
What I know, because I have worked with all of the UK's major aid agencies at some time over the last fifteen years, is that Oxfam's thinking is very similar to that of all the rest of them. So what Liddle is saying is that people should not give to development charities. That is because, in his opinion, they represent a left wing plot.
Let's ignore for a moment that Liddle clearly does not know what poverty is, or where it is. How and why he thinks UK poverty might be created by caused by bad governance and a predatory third world elite is hard to imagine unless (and I suspect this is true) he denies there is any poverty in the UK, despite all the evidence.
Why he also thinks our development agencies only work in what he calls the third world is also hard to explain. Oxfam, for example, also works on poverty in the UK.
But let's get to the more fundamental questions. What does he think might happen if charities set up to tackle poverty are not allowed to ask why those in poverty are poor? Might it just be that the poverty might be perpetuated? Is that what he wants?
And what does he think might happen if, because there was a risk that some might abuse, all humanitarian intervention in crisis situations was stopped? Might people die? Is that what he wants?
And does he really think the world would have been a better place without the work development agencies have done, including the lobbying that has, for example, resulted in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and country-by-country reporting that are designed to hold the world's multinational corporations to account when no one else has been able to make that demand? Might it be that bad governance to enhance the wealth of an elite might be rampant? Is that what he wants?
And does he think that apartheid would have ended without the support of organisations like these? Would he wish that voices for change be silenced?
And what of the substantial sums that are spent on good governance projects? Would they happen without civil society pressure to support those within so many countries he want to beat the corruption that is endemic within them? Does he really think that?
Bringing matters remarkably close to my work, does he really think that tax havens would have been challenged in the way that they have been to stop the abuse by a predatory elite (wherever they might be based) but for support of these NGOs for this work?
The simple fact is that if The Times and Rod Liddle got their way the available systems to react to humanitarian crises would collapse.
And development aid would pretty much come to an end.
Whilst pressure on tax havens would dissipate.
And campaigns for better governance in the public and private sectors that are critical to the ending of abuse in both would be pretty much stopped in their tracks.
Whilst tax havens would flourish again as the world turned its attention away from them.
With the consequence that kleptocracy would multiply, unimpeded.
And the world's poorest people would pay the price in a multitude of short and long term ways in countries right around the world.
What a few Oxfam staff did was horribly wrong. They should bear all the consequences for what they did. But utterly unambiguously Oxfam, and the other UK aid agencies, need our continuing support if the type of abuse of ninety nine percent of the world's population that The Times is apparently so keen to support is to be not only be challenged, but stopped.
Of course sexual abuse in all its forms matters. But what The Times is doing is engaging in class warfare under the pretext of exposing a sex scandal that Oxfam has already reported. Without in any way excusing the abuse we have also to name The Times' crime, which is supporting economic abuse of most of the world's population. Oxfam may have made mistakes. But The Times is guilty of supporting the worldwide oppression of people who have a right to live free of the fear that poverty creates.
I have an answer. Never give The Times any of your money.
But more than that: name them as the enemies of well-being that they are.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard, I am with you all the way. You should be Prime Minister but you are of course too intelligent and honest. Thoroughly enjoy all your blogs and emails.
I could never compromise enough to be a politician
Oh I don’t know Richard. You claim to be a tireless campaigner for openness and opponent of secrecy yet you managed to compromise that when a trust wanted to stay secret and you wanted to shove twenty grand into your pocket. All of a sudden there were acceptable reasons for secrecy and for not being open.
So compromising your claimed beliefs for your own financial benefit. Just like most politicians.
I acted in that way to prevent the feared potential abuse of a single, woman trustee.
I think that was pretty reasonable.
When people are secretive and their answers can’t be tested, they can always claim to be acting reasonably.
That is crass, and you know it
That’s like saying “please do tell the Nazi at the door there’s a Jew in the attack to see if they act reasonably”
And you know it
Your time here is over
The Times has been on the slippery slope to the gutter for a long time. I used to be a subscriber, then a weekend reader, and lately an occasional reader. I’m just popping out to do the Sunday shop – The Times won’t be in the basket today…or ever again.
I read The Times from the lock-out until the sale to the Digger then lived in a newspaper desert until The Independent in 1986 until it went derelict in 2004. Ah well, back to the desert….
I promise you that whenever I see anyone I know reading The Times I make a comment about it – including my lecturers at Uni when I was on my MBA!
The Times is not the paper it was – and this has been true since Murdoch took it over. It’s a neo-liberal establishment mouthpiece with pretensions of serious journalism. Even the FT is a better read – more balanced even – although it is too expensive for me.
I was once on a packed a train and a gentleman opposite got up to go and offered me his copy of The Times. I very politely and graciously declined along the lines of ‘That it so very nice and generous of you but I do avoid Rupert Murdoch’s papers’. He smiled and shoved it onto the luggage rack above where it stayed.
As for Liddle – as a provocateur he will be loving this. Honestly I’d let it drop now. All you are doing is giving him the attention he never got from Mummy.
It’s your blog and its obvious that you care about Oxfam for lots of very valid reasons. I hope that Oxfam continue to do their work and learn from this and move on. Although I also wish that Oxfam did not have to exist at all – like Help for Heroes whom we’ve been supporting at work as our charity of the year.
All your comment on this issue is spot on. If there’s any upside at all to Liddle’s shameful journalism, it is that The Sunday Times has a combined print + digital weekly readership of just 3,626,000 (21.9% aged 15-34). Even The Observer reaches 5,879,000 (31.5% aged 15-34). Admittedly small consolation.
So, just to be clear, you don’t think the actions of a few dozen individuals mean we should boycott Oxfam, but one column by Rod Liddle means we should boycott The Times. Very sad to see you ripping up your reputation.
Oh for heaven’s sake: are you not aware that many of us have boycotted Murdoch for years
I have tweeted the fact I will not comment for the Sun many times
I don’t know if this is appropriate. One of the reasons I like this blog is that you do not indulge in personal attacks. I take the view, for the most part, that a person’s political or other views should be separate from their private life. We should not argue about those views , Daily Mail style, by mixing them with alleged private conduct.
I know little about Rod Liddle. So I looked him up. Admittedly, it was only Wikipedia, but it says he married Rachel Royce, with whom he had had two children, and within six moths moved in with a woman, Alicia Monckton, half his age. After his divorce he called, in the media, his former wife “a total slut and slattern”.
There was then a police caution for common assault against Monckton- which he later denied. She was 20 weeks pregnant at the time. They have since married.
His other views can be looked up.
I just find find it objectionable when people like him take the moral high ground giving advice which will impact on many poor people.
Personally I gave up on all newspapers and the BBC a long time ago . Just go and ride on a train with commuters these days ; you will see very few newspapers being read, or anything else for that matter . But engaging with the world around you and trying to make sense of it by spending time on the internet although potentially worthwhile is a much more difficult task that reading any of the daily newspapers. This blog ( more power to you Richard ) is one of the places I go to daily ( and occasionally comment ) because I encounter minds here that have neither been taken over by propaganda , nor given up in despair with whom I can engage and wrestle with their comments and arguments in whatever time I have free to do so. Once you break free of received opinion from the likes of Rod Liddle etc a whole new world opens up, but it is potentially full of traps so you have to develop your own set of antenna to eliminate its wilder fantasies.
What is your involvement with these aid agencies?
I’ve thought a number of these, particularly Oxfam, have become increasingly political, and may be close to having crossed the line between ‘charity’ and ‘political organisation’.
The fact they are engaging with a political activist such as yourself just adds to this view.
Presumably you can take this opportunity to confirm your roles to counter this view. If you won’t give a meaningful response, it would confirm this view.
I have no problem with organisations being political if they wish. I do have a problem with them masquerading as charities while doing so. They need to choose one path or the other.
I am not a political activist in the sense of party politics
As far as I know my ideas have been used by the Tories, Labour, LibDems and Greens. Some in the SNP are keen. I have good relations with Plaid and some Irish parties plus EU groups. That’s not political activism. That’s political thinking, all aimed to defeat poverty. That is, of course, a charitable objective.
I have also criticised all those parties at some time I suspect (although I struggle to think what I had a go about Plaid for, if I am fair).
And what have I done with them? I’ve worked on country-by-country reporting, the tax gap, reforms to beat corruption and tax haven abuse, relieve poverty, improve governance, end kleptocracy and much more. Oh, and I’ve worked with Publish What You Pay and so the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. I suspect I have forgotten soemthing.
Your problem with that is?
My problem is that everything you’ve listed are political issues. Whether you call it ‘party political’ is irrelevant. Your answer confirms my suspicions.
I don’t have a problem with you getting involved with this. That’s your right. You are also free to defend your friends/clients in their current predicament.
My problem is Oxfam masquerading as a charity when getting involved in this. They are certainly not complying with the spirit of charity law, and may not be complying with the letter of it.
David
What you are saying is, of course, the old adage that a charity must relieve poverty but nit be so impertinent as to ask why charity exists, or to seek to do anything about its perpetuation.
Rather oddly, what you are also saying is that charities seeking to end the abuse of elites that Liddle is so keen to blame for poverty should not be addressing that issue, although in fact they do.
But what is also just wrong about your comment is that you show you are wholly unaware of what charity law says. The Charity Commission says this:
There is an important distinction between political purposes and political activities. The purposes of a charity are what it is established to achieve. The activities are how it will go about achieving those purposes.
A charity cannot be established for a political purpose, but a charity may engage in political activity or campaigning to achieve its purposes.
The guidance sets out the requirements which charities must meet if they are to ensure that their political activity or campaigning is permitted under charity law. It is intended to support charities in undertaking this activity effectively while remaining independent and not aligning with a particular political party.
https://apps.charitycommissionni.org.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Your_charitys_activities/Campaigning/default.aspx
My work with charities on the issues in question is well and truly within the spirit of the law.
I look forward to your apology.
You’ve sent a link to the Northern Ireland Charity Commission.
I am referring to activities in England. Their guidance says this:
“legal requirement: however, a charity cannot exist for a political purpose, which is any purpose directed at furthering the interests of any political party, or securing or opposing a change in the law, policy or decisions either in this country or abroad.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/speaking-out-guidance-on-campaigning-and-political-activity-by-charities-cc9/speaking-out-guidance-on-campaigning-and-political-activity-by-charities
I assume Oxfam has not been securing or opposing a change in the law, policies or decisions either in this country or abroad. If it has not, then I wholeheartedly apologise.
You quote incorrectly
This is what is said:
Political activity: political activity, as defined in this guidance, must only be undertaken by a charity in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. The commission uses this term to refer to activity by a charity which is aimed at securing, or opposing, any change in the law or in the policy or decisions of central government, local authorities or other public bodies, whether in this country or abroad. It includes activity to preserve an existing piece of legislation, where a charity opposes it being repealed or amended. This differs from activity aimed at ensuring that an existing law is observed, which falls under (1), Campaigning.
Political activity might include some or all of:
raising public support for such a change
seeking to influence political parties or independent candidates, decision-makers, politicians or public servants on the charity’s position in various ways in support of the desired change; and responding to consultations carried out by political parties
So Oxfam may explicitly work on the activities I have engaged with them on because they further their charitable goals
Your interpretation is completely wrong
The charities that you should worry about are the so-called think tanks that get away with charitable status with mysterious funding sources, but are wholly political
If you bother to look at what the likes of Oxfam and similar NGOs in this sector do, the overwhelming part of it is humanitarian (disasters, conflict) or development (sanitation, education, health, agriculture). A relatively small amount is on campaigning but that campaigning is deeply informed by their first hand experience.
However, as Richard points out, if you work in these areas you cannot help but be aware that you are mostly working on the symptoms and that the root causes are about politics and power. That is as true for Africa say as it is for the UK. Unless you tackle those issues, and that means research and campaigning, nothing will change.
That is the reason why Oxfam and by extension others in the sector are being attacked here. They need our vocal and active support
I agree
The thing is this morning’s Observer is also reporting about this and I think its important that we monitor what they are saying too.
The best way to support Oxfam is to continue to support their fund raising work. It won’t stop me contributing. We can expect no quarter from the MS right wing media concerning stuff like this. It is a good time to know whose side you are on these days unfortunately.
I remember when all the stuff came out about the Co-op Board – the Co-op! – which had been one of our more stable, ethical and soundly ran institutions and look what happened!!
The actions of these staff is despicable and in the case of the Co-op and Oxfam you wonder how these people managed to get their jobs in the positions with these organisations in the first place.
Such behaviour is more at home in say the context of the ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ rather than a publically spirited NGO.
Does it tell us something about modern recruitment practice? Is recruitment practice so dominated by psychometric testing or consultancy practice and the latest fads that we get such deeply flawed people in these positions?
I mean, you can get books to help you pass psychometric tests – to pass yourself off as someone you are not. It is a really worrying trend to be honest.
I long ago decided I would never knowingly give any Murdoch business a penny.
I still read The Times occasionally but I will never pay for it. To do so would be complicity in wrongdoing.
That said, I supported and admired Murdoch’s smashing the print unions, but that was then.
“That said, I supported and admired Murdoch’s smashing the print unions”
You got what you deserved then. Unfortunately, the rest of us got it too.
The unfortunate fact is that in all areas of human activity there will be those that seek to exploit any position of power in illegal/immoral ways for their own purposes. This is true in government, in the private sector and also in NGOs.
Don’t focus on individuals, focus on the aims, the systems, and the overall ethos of any organisation or movement. It it basically trying (and for the most part succeeding) to do good? I’m not sure that one could come to this judgement about The Times 🙂
Any suggestion that Oxfam is an evil organisation that we should all shun seems to me to be so absurd as to be an impossible message to push. But it is amazing what you can get people to believe in if you say it often enough.
Agree with all that
The issue with Oxfam and many of the large charities is that a disproportionate amount of your donation goes towards admin, management salaries and advertising plus other things unrelated to actually helping the people who need it most
Do you think you can run a large organisation without admin?
It’s like assuming small government is possible…
Let’s base things on facts. Oxfam’s spending can be found here: https://www.oxfam.org.uk/donate/how-we-spend-your-money
This shows 10% is used to “run” the charity, and a further 8% is used to increase funds and replace donors who have stopped giving for whatever reason. A further 3% is used for campaigns against poverty and climate and change, etc, rather than on aid, making the total non-aid proportion 21%. Not bad really. See https://philanthropy.iupui.edu/files/research/nonprofit_overhead_brief_5.pdf for comparisons.
Anth – actually a careful analysis would show that a remarkably small amount goes on so called overheads. Economy of scale applies to charities too. I’ve had this debate regularly and those who make this claim have rarely if ever bothered to read, let alone understand charity accounts.
Charities need managing too surprisingly enough. I’ve worked across all sectors including large multinationals. A large NGO like an Oxfam or Save is about the hardest organisation to run. Chuck the average private sector manager into a small village in a war-zone and see how they get on…
If you want to see bloated overheads and inefficiency, try just about any part of the finance sector. But hey, who cares if they skim the top off your pension and savings. Let’s attack organisations who do a huge amount with very scarce resources
“Most of the world’s poverty today is occasioned by bad governance and a predatory Third World elite, not by capitalism.” Liddle hasn’t read any history. Even a cursory glance at history over the past few hundred years would tell you that much of the reason for poverty in what has been called the “third world” is the actions of western governments, their agents and institutions – including slavery, the rapacious extraction of natural assets, the imposition of unequal terms of trade, the exploitation of cheap labour, agricultural subsidies for western farmers, the refusal to allow use of generic medicines, the enforcement of “structural economic reforms” and not forgetting covert and overt intervention to effect regime change to install puppet regimes obedient to western demands. The list of interventions by the USA, Britain and others to overthrow elected governments is truly appalling.
“The Divide…” by Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the LSE explores how it is that we are rich and they are poor.
Yes, the likes of Liddle, The Times and several other hard-right mouthpieces are the enemies of well-being, fairness and equity.
the Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins is an interesting read. It was a little hard to believe to start with but a lot of it checked out.
Perkins turns up on the docu-film The Four Horseman – it’s well worth a look.
Is it only me who is suspicious about the timing of this, given the original Oxfam report was given to the Charities Commission in August 2011 (according to The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/09/oxfam-pressed-over-claims-haiti-aid-workers-used-prostitutes). So let me remind you of the recent revelations of sexual abuse scandals.
In July 2014 that Home Office confessed to missing 114 files associated with historical sex abuse among Westminster MPs (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/05/lost-child-abuse-files-home-office). But this wasn’t something limited to the ’80s: in October 2017, 36 MPs had allegations of sexual harassment made against them (http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/89342/westminster-sexual-harassment-scandal-36-mps-implicated), although allegations dated back to April 2014 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sexual-harassment-westminster-investigation-reveals-3398983).
Then on 23 January news broke of sexual abuse during a fundraiser for The Presidents Club on 18 January, where male guests (they were all male) groped hostesses (https://www.ft.com/content/075d679e-0033-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5). “[The] event was attended by 360 figures from British business, politics and finance and the entertainment included 130 specially hired hostesses.” Surprisingly this event had continued for 33 years before the behaviour of the attendees was exposed. And finally, on Thursday 8 February Westminster published its report into sexual harassment, including controversial rules about anonymity, which documented that almost 1-in-5 workers in Westminster had experienced or witnessed sexual harassment (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/08/europe/uk-parliament-sexual-harassment-report-intl/index.html).
So after years (even decades) of scandal after scandal rocking the establishment, including politicians, businessmen and bankers, just after the report on the lasted scandal about the ongoing culture of Westminster, filled with bullying, abuse of power and sexual harassment, is published, at only 1 minute past midnight the next day The Times published “revelations” about Oxfam workers illegally paying for prostitutes that was made public in August 2011! Coincidence? Dare I say the right-wing press were sitting on this in order to deflect scandal from Tory MPs in Westminster by accusing Oxfam, who only works to alleviate poverty and mitigate climate change, both issues that the rich are happy ignoring in the pursuit of wealth. And now instead of MPs putting their house in order they are threatening to stop giving NGOs government aid (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43020875) and accusing British NGOs of systematic abuse, even though the figure of 120 cases last year is a UN figure that seems to be for the globe not just UK aid organisations (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/11/government-threatens-withdraw-funding-oxfam-faces-fresh-allegations/). This is a very convenient distraction for the Tories, with the side-effect that those who work against their neoliberal globalisation ideologies will receive less funds, and be less of a thorn in their side in future (without caring that they will be unable to do as much good, resulting in less lives saved and less people freed from the crippling effects of poverty).
Is the timing just coincidence? I doubt it.
Let me clarify some of the numbers as more figures are published.
This article http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/oxfam-crisis-latest-sexual-abuse-vulnerable-people-ngos-report-charity-commission-haiti-prostitutes-a8206431.html states “Separate figures on sexual harassment compiled by charities in 2017 showed that Oxfam recorded 87 incidents, Save The Children 31, Christian Aid two, and a “small number of cases” in the British Red Cross.” That’s a total of 120+. But the level of sexual harassment is not defined and may have been minor, the kind of sexism that unfortunately is commonplace in some offices on a daily basis, and apparently rampant in Westminster.
But how many cases is that compared to the number of staff? Take Oxfam’s 87. According to the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43027631) Oxfam has 5,083 staff, 27,000 volunteers, so the proportion of offenders is 1.7% of staff, and 0.3% of volunteers. Compare this to the 36 MPs on the harassment list, which is 5.5% of the 650 Westminster MPs, and that’s the number of abusers, not the number of cases. Therefore, sexual harassment is more than three times as likely in Westminster than among Oxfam staff.
But Oxfam takes action and sacks staff, whereas Westminster, and the Tories, apparently do nothing.
Richard,
Are you not defending child abuse and other wrongdoing by attacking these journalists who are doing their job?
Oxfam have said that they didn’t describe the details of what happened to anyone because it would have “drawn extreme attention to it” which would “have been in no-one’s best interest”.
Which looks very much like a cover up to me. If this was some group you disagree with you’d be all over them attacking them like you are doing with the Times, but because you are on their side you are trying to attack the Times and defend Oxfam, claiming some conspiracy against them.
It could just be of course, that Oxfam aren’t as clean and wonderful as you would like to think. Haiti and Chad aren’t the only stories which are going to come out – this I know for certain.
I don’t understand why people are equating what’s happened with child abuse. From what I’ve read there is no evidence of that.
And how can Richard be condoning it if, first, it didn’t happen; second, he has said that the abuse was wrong; and third, Oxfam investigated and sacked the perpetrators, therefore no one is condoning any form of sexual abuse.
campaign or no Oxfam is caught out here. If you want to attack the government then you have to play their rules and be subject sleaze reporting.
Read page 24 here http://www.oxfamannualreview.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/oxfam-annual-report-2016-17-v2.pdf
Oxfam reported the cases in August 2011. The Dfid could have asked more questions back then if they thought the reporting was insufficient. Surely it is the government who is caught out here for not doing thorough checks at the time? Instead they’re blaming Oxfam for their failings.
I did ….only once I think….buy a copy of The Times.
I promise not to do it again.
There’s a good chap Andy!
Mind you if you run out of loo roll please feel free to buy a copy of The Times for a more fitting use. It’s also good for putting around cat trays I hear.
Derek – no you are not the only one. Feels like part of continuing campaign to undermine all of our institutions, public and civil society, so that a small but hugely wealthy and powerful elite can grab power. Oxfam and other major NGOs are amongst those who present significant challenges to that right wing elite. After their successes with Brexit and Trump they have been hugely emboldened to take on anyone they see as their enemies
A shame that our current so called opposition is so limp. At worst, it’s Just colluding.
Richard
This is a very common ploy which happens all the time on Facebook: stuff which happened and was disclosed some time ago is presented as if it’s new and being reported now; it’s dishonest.
Of course, the Murdoch press is the godfather of such practises; Liddle’s purported concern for abused women is farcical.
Incidentally, I read you every day but have not commented for a while. I have been spending quite a lot of time in hospital which, despite Jeremy Hunt’s best efforts to undermine the NHS, is still achieving miracles on a daily basis.
Good for the NHS!
I hope you are fully recovered
Lidl’s article is hidden behind a paywall, but I am sure that it does not contain an analysis of the predatory first and second world elites. Being rich allows them to buy an ideology (called capitalism) according to which they are the good guys. Lidl is payed to preach this ideology of his masters. May he be proud of what he is doing …
It defends capitalism to the hilt
As this Oxfam thing exploded across the press, I’m afraid my first reaction was “How convenient!” (for the government and their press). Sad that this misconduct (which as you said has been dealt with by Oxfam) should be used to attack an organisation that helps the poor and vulnerable.
Thank you for articulating (factually) what was my gut feeling.
“Are you not defending child abuse and other wrongdoing by attacking these journalists who are doing their job?” If anyone thinks Liddle is a “journalist” then it shows how far our standards have slipped. He’s a propagandist in the pay of an over-powerful oligarch and his diatribes contain no analysis, no examination and weighing of evidence, no context – it’s the sort of mindless bigotry you could hear late at night in many a male-orientated pub – and offers no critical appraisal of the issues and no contribution towards improving governance.
Liddle (and others), The Times (and others) is emblematic of the way most of the Press lives in the gutter. Don’t give them your money and they will wither.
[…] following comment was posted on the blog overnight. It raises an issue in a fair way that needs […]
“Most of the world’s poverty today is occasioned by bad governance and a predatory Third World elite, not by capitalism.” I didn’t spend years studying economic development, not to mention travelling in the Third World, without learning that. My own home country of Singapore has, in my lifetime, lifted itself from mediaeval poverty to modern prosperity, by good (although heavy-handed) governance, not having a predatory elite, and embracing capitalism. I can think off the cuff of many sub-Saharan African countries whose history since independence bears out Rod Liddle’s comment.
If you think Singapore has good governance and no predatory elite who are you kidding?
It is a single party state with one party rule since 1959
And you say that’s good governance?
I’ve also spent a lot of time there and done business there. It’s founding father was also a communist in his early days, and the state is very active in everything from industry to housing to infrastructure. Not quite the market obsessed neo-Liberal version of Capitalism beloved in the UK and US.
I found the most shocking part of this current story being the government’s threat to withdraw it’s funding.
Is there any large organisation where there aren’t people who exploit or abuse, or pay for sex? I think it unlikely. If funding was taken away from every such organisation or service, the government wouldn’t be paying for anything, (and parliament would be the first in the firing line).
How convenient for Mrs May and her gang.
A possible Cabinet discussion – “Let’s extend austerity to charities and anything else we can find an excuse to bail out from funding”.
It’s not just The Times. The usual suspects of Tory MPs are trying to stop using international aid to help people.
The current International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt is warning “Oxfam will be stripped of UK aid money unless it hands over all information about its workers’ use of prostitutes” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/oxfam-haiti-prostitutes-allegations-latest-penny-mourdant-international-development-secretary-moral-a8205311.html). But she is the same MP who said about Dfid, “It will no longer be enough for a project simply to be achieving good things. We must be able to demonstrate why it absolutely needs to be Britain that pays for them…” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/oxfam-haiti-prostitutes-allegations-latest-penny-mourdant-international-development-secretary-moral-a8205311.html) This sounds like we will only help poor people, or those suffering from natural disasters, if it helps us!
She’s not the only Tory. MP Priti Patel has been very critical of aid agencies in recent days. But she was also sacked from being International Development Secretary for visiting Israel and trying to use the UK’s international aid budget to pay for Israel’s military! (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/priti-patel-israel-army-idf-foreign-aid-money-british-holiday-meetings-netanyahu-international-a8041716.html)
So, these are the type of people who think that aid should be used benefit the UK, who are accusing Oxfam and trying to stop government money from fighting against inequality and poverty. Typical Tory attitudes: help trade but don’t give money to the poor who often suffer from trade agreements.
I think you have merely put into a blog a more succinct version of what i yabbered on about in my living room last night. No surprise at the awful Daily Express “End International Aid” front page story. The limits to which corporate business has infiltrated the world of charity as well as public services knows no bounds it seems right now – who knows darker depths are to be found in the next few days? The Charity Commission is a very dark place now – try finding a phone number or a contact to help with a problem. Near impossible. It has retreated behind a black GOVT symbol – in a vain attempt to appear above board? Who knows? But there is deep nasty stuff happening here. The world of corporate charity needs a big shake-up (having seen it at play in Malawi/Senegal) but this is not the way a good outcome will be found.
Thanks for articulating my thoughts Richard. The almost concurrent release of Oxfam’s (now annual) report on inequality, Rees Mogg delivering the Express Petition last week, and that fact that both he and Penny Mordaunt are members of the (parliamentary ?) ERG gang – drove me towards a conspiracy theory. Anything to deflect attention from the Brexit shambles……