to point out DAVID CAMERON is asking much poorer people than himself to give to CHARITY.its the Big Society back from the dead.

[ScousyFogarty]

The PM will be speaking about this morning. He wants you to round up for charity at supermarkets. And give at cashpoints.

I find it hard to believe. But I trust the PM will have donated at least 2 million from his massive fortune.

Do we really need a top politician telling us to give to charity. I like to choose the charities I give to .How about you?

"if people are put off giving to charity simply because they don't like the person asking, then I doubt they were very charitable people in the first place" (my bolding)

But it ain't as simple as that, is it?

Let's not make it a character attack alone. It's just part of what makes me so angry about these proposals.

I'm sure that if I was in a family earning £400k a year, married to a banker with a private boat and butlet, I may very well find David Cameron and his condemnation of "lack of donations" not particularly upsetting.

Sardine, I would bet that Conservative supporters give more money to charity then Labour supporters and they probably pay more tax too.

The point about the welfare state was that people in bad situations didn't need to be dependent on charitable wealthy people looking kindly on them. It means that provision isn't threatened by changes in donation levels, that provision isn't affected by what cause is currently "fashionable". It means that people who are not very appealing get looked after, the same as people who are.

The welfare state is a good thing. Replacing it with charity causes a whole host of problems, and puts us back to victorian times.

posted too soon. Meant to add:

".. but just because I find DC a cretin doesn't mean that I don't like his ideas on that, and that simple basis, alone. There's slightly more to it than that, which has already been identified in this thread."

Sardine, my DP has always voted Tory. He spends at least 16 hours a week doing volunteer work (st.john's ambulance) on top of a full-time job. You are making a sweeping generalisation.

I give several hundreds pounds a month. In tax. I am obliged to do that. Which is absolutely right and I am glad to do it. I have direct debits that pay money to charities to every month. I am not obliged to do that but I am happy to do so. I will be seriously pissed off if I get nagged any more than we already are to give.

Charity chap on Today was talking about how much more generous they are in the US. Well of course they are - they don't have the same sort of welfare state or the same levels of taxation. They rely on charity. In the UK, charity giving should be totally optional and not promoted by the government.

We're low income as parent carers but we give what we can when we can (mainly Autism & Cancer charities). Otherwise we try to give our TIME to raise money for local school PTA, for a local car scheme for the elderly and disabled, to a dog rescue charity. I'm also doing Race for Life in July.

If the cuts to disability benefits come through I'll not be able to contribute anything cash wise plus the additional strain on the family means my time to help out will be compromised too.

ikoto you can bet all you like, but you have nothing to base it on.

It is true that poor people give proportionately more to charity than rich people. And that wealthy people are more likely to be conservative supporters and poor people are more likely to be left wing (with exceptions on both sides of course).

I have also noticed that most of the people I have met in the voluntary sector have quite strong left wing views.

Make of that what you will.

Orm the conservatives would prefer a more US style welfare system over here though, so I guess that is where they are coming from.

But the welfare state isn't working - the money hasn't got to the vulnerable or the front line ...it is the same as any aid.

Seriously, I would be happy to help (cook, shop) for the vulnerable/less mobile old lady down my road - it would ultimately cost everyone less - than having to employ a council staff member to employ an outside company to come an deliver meals to her house. It makes sense to me - it doesn't matter to me who the messenger is ...

The welfare state is good on paper - but somewhere along the line we have to own up that there isn't enough cash in the kitty to cater for everyone and their needs. A catch-all, fire fighting mentality that the council uses is no good to anyone ...

Sardine, it's the "whims" of charity that I also have a problem with. A very good point to raise.

I also don't like the idea of the needy in society having to go cap in hand to claim something and then be grateful to the "lovely, selfless" charity donation folk who pat themselves on the back whilst doing it.

Reminds me of the Secret Millionare TV show - they recently had a billionare on there didn't they? I think the gift given was £3k for a new roof or land or something plus £100k for a new building? Which is a donation and can all be offset against tax anyway, so costs them zero - and still they get congratulated for it!

The point is - if you're the sort of person who thinks, 'I'm not giving to charity because some rich Tory has asked me to' - would you have given anyway? Tony Blair and Gordon Brown weren't exactly shopping in Asda were they? Do you think they give half of their money to the poor? - do they my arse

Proportions are irrelevant though when it comes to task of financing activities, its the nominal amount thats important 2% of a lot is more than 5% of little.

Common sense tells us that people with Conservative views are unlikely to assist with things like homelessness, drug abuse and so on. Because the entire point of Conservative philosophy is that it is up to individuals to sort themselves out.

It's not a secret

fleshwound and what of the old lady on the road where no-one wants to cook for her? The old lady who is not a very nice old lady and pisses off everyone who comes around? The old lady who has alzheimers and is hard to deal with? The old lady with much greater needs than you or someone like you can deal with?

Relying on charity to do things means that some people will not receive help, is the bottom line.

I can't believe that people genuinely want to do away with the welfare state. People are so so selfish it simply beggars belief.

But the money still goes to the need - albeit in a way you don't like - the need is raised and met - with no middle-men drawing their cut.

"I would be happy to help (cook, shop) for the vulnerable/less mobile old lady down my road - it would ultimately cost everyone less - than having to employ a council staff member to employ an outside company to come an deliver meals to her house. It makes sense to me - it doesn't matter to me who the messenger is ..."

But isn't the point that volunteers cannot provide the reliability and professionalism of a taxpayer funded service?

That idea you have sounds fab and I'm sure my own mum would love it. But I wouldn't feel 100% happy about you doing it because
a) what happens when you decide it's no longer for you, or your circumstances change and you can't do it any more (you might do it for 10 years or 2 days)
b) where are your health and safety checks coming from? are you going to sue my mum after carrying her shopping home?
c) what if you're no good? can i complain to anyone and get you replaced?
d) what if you steal from my mum? can i get you fired or do i just have to report it as a neighbourly dispute at the police station?
e) what if my mum's condition worsens - will you be able to recognise when her needs are no longer being met?

These "messangers" have to answer to people that a friendly neighbour helping out doesn't. They have access to training a friendly neighbour doesn't. They are vetted more than a friendly neighbour is. They offer more consistent quality of care (at least in theory - and if they don't, they can be investigated).

I'm all for people helping out where they can, but to replace qualified, responsible people with flakey volunteers won't always work.

Ikoto so on that basis you think it is right that poor people should be asked to give up more and more of their sparse funds to charity, while the wealthy give amounts that they don't even notice should be patted on the back for doing a great job?

Or are you saying that poor people don't need to bother giving at all as their donations aren't large enough to make a difference, and the rich have it covered?

What are you trying to say?

I already do thanks. With children at school I have no choice, there is the ever constant request for this and that for charity. Moreover with a real drop in incomes where does he honestly think this money will come from. Another very good example of not being in the real world.

Then perhaps it releases the help so that the social worker/ carer can concentrate on those that need it more. I was listening to the news on the radio with half an ear today, but there was some huge figure (£80 Billion) over and above what is coming out of the taxes now to care for the elderly - let alone the vulnerable, disabled ... taxes and welfare state is just not going to cut it !

Giving time and effort to charity is quite a different matter to giving money. Most people can afford to donate some of their time. Not everyone can afford to give money.

My parents brought me up to be a 'do-gooder' - to give help and time where it was needed in the community. That was how they gave. And they are true-blue dyed in the wool old-fashioned tories. I am not but I think they were right in their attitude to giving. I try to do the same but as I work full-time it is hard to acheive - hence the direct debits.

I don't get all this about the coalition destroying the state, by the end of the Parliament Government spending will still equate to more than 40% of GDP so its not as if the Government is stopping spending money.

fleshwound a lot of the money donated to charity these days goes on advertising for more donations, and paying people to get others to sign up for direct debits. Sales people, in other words.

This is mainly true of the larger ones but smaller ones employ fundraisers and so on as well.

And when you say "middle men" I assume you mean managers and administrators? All charities have those, someone has to organise it all.

It is not true that every penny given to charities goes to the needy.

Thanks frgaah - From your posting I can infer that I am flaky, litigious, unreliable, useless and wouldn't know an arse from an elbow??

It is just a loss of common sense - it was an example (even if it was a bad one). Yes, there are needs that might not be adequately met - but at the same time why have taxes thrown at needs that the community might be able to meet cheaper???

I haven't killed my kids with my cooking - would it really be so bad to serve another plate of food and take it across the road to someone who needs it??

Charities have adopted many business principles in order to increase the amount of donations they receive. If for every pound spent on advertising/fundraising brings in £2 then its worth it.