This is from what seems to be a genuine JustGiving appeals page:
Yes, that is Jeremy Hunt, our Chancellor of the Exchequer. Rather than provide the funding that the NHS needs in a budget for which he is responsible, he is, instead, rather desperately seeking to raise £10,000 by running the London Marathon.
I am not, for one minute, saying that Hunt should not run the marathon. Doing so is his choice. But, the messaging that he is sending out by choosing to raise funds for the NHS is quite extraordinary. By implication, he makes clear that he believes that private funding of the NHS is to be preferred to state funding, and charity (which requires a degree of benevolence on the part of those with wealth, which is not now always apparent) is to be preferred to collective funding from the state when it comes to issues as important as healthcare. If that is what he really thinks, he should say so. His actions certainly suggest this is the case.
Perhaps, as desperate, is the sum that he is seeking to raise. You would, somehow, think that he might do a little better than target a total of £10,000. After all, Rishi Sunak could donate that and not notice.
But then, noticed the sum raised. As votes of confidence, go, £914 is not exactly an impressive indication of support for what Hunt is doing.
Jeremy Hunt appears to be managing a PR disaster. But that does rather summarise his political career.
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:
Indeed.
In a similar vein are you going to comment on the former ‘Iron Chancellor’ Gordon Brown’s plan to tackle poverty? It seemed to me to demonstrate the same approach and attitudes as Hunt in its lack of belief in the ability of government to do anything substantial.
I have not looked at it yet
I have very little confidence in Brown, so why do so?
I guess Brown is trying to set himself up as a mensch to Reeves and gives some indication of how this issue will be approached.
True
Here’s a summary of the Brown plan.
I’m surpised the sum only mentions £1.3bn of interest levied on bank reserve funds.
That is an absolute pittance compared with the sums the BoE are shelling out unnecessarily, and already noted by Richard, and others as a bank subsidy.
Even if his heart is in the right place this all looks so tokenistic.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/27/gordon-brown-calls-for-creation-of-poverty-fund-to-halt-slide-into-hungry-decade#:~:text=Brown%20called%20on%20government%2C%20business,donate%20more%20to%20good%20causes.
So true
What is also shocking is that he has given over a £100,000 of his own money to his local party to support his reelection.
He is the chancellor and he’s asking people to donate to the NHS when he has the power to do this in a moment from the state. Thanks for drawing attention to this despicable man
Many of the problems in the NHS are as a result of his actions when he was health secretary.
Jeremy Hunt is now trying to cheer everybody up by telling them that Thames Water is solvent. Nice to know water privatisation is working so well.
Meanwhile, whatever its flaws; thank goodness the publicly owned Scottish Water is safe from Conservative Government reach.
The previous day one blog covered the NHS & its deliberate de-funding to make it fail & thus make the case for privatisation.
This latest piece of tory-PR is all of a kind – using charity to fund a state activity (health). Pathetic is not the half of it.
The trajectory of LINO ref NHS funding is no different to that of the tories. On this issue alone (public health) neither party is fit to run a local authority, let alone a national government. An election is coming, a vote for either the tories or LINO is a vote for the continuing destruction of the NHS.
“Action limiting fiscal rules dear boy which is why we must run ourselves into the ground and the country!”
Thank you, Richard.
Similarly, many people feel uncomfortable with Children In Need.
Your final sentence applies to his business career, until he teamed up with a friend and set up Hot Courses and leveraged family connections on both sides of the aisle. These family connections extend to the big house at the far end of the Mall.
In his own write
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/27/britain-seems-stuck-in-a-doom-loop-of-poverty-i-have-a-plan-to-raise-billions-to-address-that
Thanks
The contradictions and hypocrisy is astounding and sickening from my perspective.
I invited my local Conservative MP to visit a local charity run home for adults with severe learning disabilities. Some needing two full time support workers. After the visit I pointed out that staff working for not much more than minimum wages were undertaking a sponsored run to raise money to purchase a much needed lift. No reply and no donation and no response to the detailed factual analysis of the crisis in the care sector provided by the charity which supports my adult son.
Philanthropy/charity is a double edged sword – on one hand it can save lives, on the other it is a symptom of State failure.
A PAC report is out seeming to highlight the desperate plight of public investment in the UK.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24216342.major-spending-report-lays-bare-reality-broken-brexit-britain/
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5804/cmselect/cmpubacc/628/report.html
Just looked on his appeal site out of curiosity. He’s just over £1000 now.
Aided by £5 from one Kier Starmer.
Obviously a spoof, as there’s also a Kia Starmer, £2, and an Osama Bin Laden with no money but lots of vitriol.
Maybe…
“The role of charity in Victorian England was a contentious issue. On the one hand, charities were needed to provide extra help for the extremely poor after the 1834 poor law withdrew nearly all the outdoor relief (see my post on the workhouses of Victorian Britain). On the other hand, many Victorian citizens thought that the government should be doing more to help the poor by building better houses, putting in water pipes, connecting sewers and providing free education and healthcare.” — The role of charity in Victorian England, https://backinthedayof.co.uk/the-role-of-charity-in-victorian-england
Charities are required when government are incompetent.
Charities can not meet everyone’s needs. Government should and can.
Thanks
it’s a piss take
It may be, but it’s a good one then
Mr Hunt (say his name carefully!) raised £40K in the same run for the same charity in 2022, if this helps?
https://www.altonherald.com/news/hunt-brothers-run-up-ps40000-for-royal-surrey-county-hospital-566912
On the ITV News website this week Peston had a piece with one Gordon Brown how to raise £1bn for public spending and why this was not being picked up by Ms Reeves.
Gordon mentioned that the UK was paying interest to the banks on their deposits, some £40bn per year and that the UK was one of the few countries to do this.
What was not mentioned was that Gordon introduced the payment of interest in 2006.
No humility offered of perhaps that was a mistake, and now was the time to stop paying interest instead use the £40bn for the public good.
I tweeted this earlier today
His plan is pathetic