The Guardian has reported this morning that:
A committee of MPs has unanimously refused to endorse the appointment of a former Tory minister as chair of the Charity Commission, with a stinging rebuke to the government for selecting her despite “a complete lack of experience”.
I share MPs' concern on this appointment.
First I think think that the lack of experience Lady Stowell has makes her wholly unsuited for this task. If the supposed crisis at Oxfam suggests anything it is that the charity sector should no longer be the preserver of the enthusiastic but unskilled amateur and that appropriate skills are required. It is a failure of leadership to appoint someone without the required skills to the Charity Commission in that case.
Second, I do not believe that resigning your party membership when you have previously been appointed by that party to high political office breaks your association with a party or party politics and it is absolutely clear that party politics is not a part of UK charity activity. To have someone in charge of the sector who has been partisan to the date of their appointment and whose resignation is solely motivated by that appointment pushes the boundaries of credibility on this issue both for those who suspect that this is a political appointment and for those who want fair play to be seen to be done, as I do as someone who is very clearly interested in politics but who has very clearly not endorsed a party line and has been critical of all parties when I think it appropriate.
In that case MPs got this right.
But the government does not have to take note. It would, however, be wise to do so. In the current environment appointing a Tory peer to head the Charity Commission would send out all the wrong messages. The only wonder is that it got this far. That it has does not give me much confidence that ministers will take heed of the MPs' advice.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
If party politics is not part of UK charity activity, why are the boards of UK charities stuffed full with ex Labour people?
And why are the headlines the charities produce very party political?
People are entitled to jobs after politics
I am not saying Tina Stowell is not
I am saying that this is not the right one
And challenging poverty is not party political
Oxfam have been very party political lately. They are even using the same language as the Labour party when publishing their error strewn reports on inequality, austerity and the NHS. The “perfect storm” poster might as well have been done by the labour party – apart from it also being outright incorrect.
Which really is no surprise given that Oxfam’s higher levels are staffed by Labour people.
And there I was thinking that Oxfam was a poverty relief charity. But in their world it seems only Labour governments can do anything right, and Tory governments are by definition wrong – whatever they do.
Given I am well known for criticising Corbyn and did Labour when in office and under Miliband that it not the place to make that point
Re poverty, Oxfam sounds quite like the IMF, WB and OECD. Are they all Labour stooges?
I don’t hear the IMF, World Bank and OECD claiming the Tory government are the cause of zero hours contracts, high prices, benefit cuts, unemployment and childcare costs. Which just happen to have been exactly what Labour was campaigning about at the time – even using the same language.
Hang on: they do criticise austerity
@ Rosemary says: “…. and Tory governments are by definition wrong — whatever they do.”
Yes 🙂 🙂
Anyone who still thinks that the recent Oxfam episode does not have a political dimension – please note.
What the Government has tried to get up to here is so obvious.
They are without shame.
Entirely agree. It is just as irresponsible as the appointment of Penny Mordaunt, whose sole aim in life apart from the self harming implicit in Brexit, is to put an end to the aid budget. May seems to know no shame. I am sure that prisoner of the right as she appears to be, she has the intelligence to comprehend the harm that she does to the country in the interest of holding her party together.
I listened to some of the interviews. In her long career she has never involved herself in any charity work, even for her local community, until recently.
There must be thousands of people, certainly hundreds , with experience which would be relevant and who are not politically tainted.
Appointments to these sort of public positions reek of patronage – and create the impression that the pool of ‘talent’ in the UK is very, very small.
I’d like to see some evidence that an eye has been cast outside of the tight circle of the Westminster court village for someone ti take on the Charities Commission.
I know nothing of Lady Stowell, but the impression that a flower-hatted ‘Lady’ is the right person for the role speaks volumes.
The Conservative Party, The Labour Party, Oxfam, all political parties, charities and all organisations have to accept they will be criticised and none are above criticism. What needs to happen is that the criticism is taken on board and addressed as appropriate.
What skills are required to head up a commission? Alternatively, what skills do you believe she lacks?
Read what the MPs said
The Guardian report did not specify any particular skills, which is why I was curious whether you had any views on the skills required. If you were to ask me for my vision, I would suggest that any charity that receives more than 20% of its income from governments is not a charity but a government department and ought to be administered like a government department and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I believe it should also pay corporation tax.
The growth of behemoths such as Oxfam, Greenpeace and WWF has taken the concept of charities to absurd limits. The way that these bodies meddle with the internal affairs of other countries is inappropriate in this day and age. I thought the days of imperialism and colonialism were over.
So how do you suggest aid should be delivered?
And if the government does not interfere in RBS which it very largely owns why should it engage in charities it contracts with?
Please explain?
Richard
Great answer but it might be wise to save your breath.
RE: The commentator ‘Nina Hartley’.
This is the name of well known American pornographic actress.
Some one out there obviously has a weird sense of humour!
You can tell, I am really not big on porn actresses
I am not apologising
But thanks