To say that some charities shouldn’t exist?

[YourJadeSeal]

Shouldn’t governments take responsibility for things like homelessness and food banks instead of relying on charity?

In a perfect world which this obviously isn't....

Government should take responsibility, yes. But they don't. So charities exist to plug the gap.

Many charities deliver contracts for the government, almost always at a very cheap rate.

Yes they should. I remember a Teresa May interview where she was asked if she was ashamed that food banks exist in the UK and her reply was something along of the lines of it being so humbling to live in such a charitable country. Made me feel sick. Poverty is a massive thing and not enough is done to address it. But without charities and volunteers the UK would be a much more miserable place, the amount of slack that they pick up is immense.

In a perfect world, no-one would be homeless and foodbanks would not exist - the world isn't perfect.

Circumstances can change in the blink of an eye, but this is a huge problem and not one which is easily resolved.

The government? It’s taxpayers’ money and the prevailing ethos at the moment is that that: tax is theft and devil take the hindmost, those less fortunate don’t work hard enough, good fortune is earned rather than just good luck, poverty is contagious and avoided by ignoring it. Those on benefits are scroungers.

Most people in this country are getting poorer and the very rich are getting richer.

Broadly speaking, the guiding principles of a Tory government is that society runs itself which means we need charities and organisations to look after the pockets of society that need it. The guiding principles of a Labour government is that society is governed and run centrally from a shared pot which leads to closures or charities and organisations that help people.

I mean, to be fair, given that humanity isn't at its best when it's in power, I think there's a case for charity as an alternative to government.

But if I won the lottery, I wouldn't give to or start a charity. I'd give money directly to those who needed it (anonymously).

Charities were doing these things long before governments started to be active in these areas.

Charities can't fix the policies; governments can't do everything that's needed on the ground. Best way is for them to work together effectively

There is an interesting moral argument, that says we shouldn’t give to charity, as it takes the responsibility away from the government.

As long as we keep giving, they can continue to reduce services.. this passes the risk of the services failing away from government / councils, onto charities and individuals.

It's terrible that in such a wealthy country people have to rely on charities to eat. It's a massive systemic failure. The gap between the rich and poor just gets bigger and bigger.

Completely agree OP

A lot are mismanaged which doesn't help

The ultimate aim of many charities, like the Trussell Trust, is to not exist. That's why their work goes beyond the practical steps of providing food support. It looks at the causes of food poverty and tries to work with governments, etc., to provide the support people need without relying on charity.

Food banks exist all over the world; it is not a UK phenomenon

I don’t think this really stacks up though because not all people or parties do believe it is the government’s responsibility to do things like feed people. The Conservative Party by definition believe in a smaller state. They don’t believe it’s the role of government to provide all the basics so donating to charity hardly changes that core value.

I never said it was. I was referencing an interview specifically about the UK. I work with foodbanks! And most other people on this thread are referencing the UK, not just me.

There are some charities doing work that would be better dealt with by the government at whatever level, yes.

Well in the UK there were only 35 official Trussell trust food banks in 2010 compared to over 1,400 today. Given the huge, obscene increase under the Tory government it would be ridiculous to not acknowledge that.

Yes they should.

But when they don't, good citizens have a choice of accepting greater suffering or doing something about it.

Luckily we do have a country full of caring citizens, and so these charities exist.

We could, instead, lobby our MP and that may be worth doing as well. Sadly the Tories seemed to celebrate growth in food banks but, I'd like to believe a Labour MP would be more engaged with improving things from within. Id not recommend stopping support for foodbanks though....I doubt any improvement would happen very fast.

Absolutely.

“We don't do charity in Germany we pay taxes. Charity is just a failure of governments' responsibilities.”
Henning Wehn

I agree they shouldn't have to exist, but I'm bloody grateful they do!

That being said, I do wonder if the government would be doing more if food banks didn't exist. Now it seems an 'easy out' for any Doctor/social services/CAB employee to go 'ah, you have no food? Go to a food bank!' Rather than attempt to help address the root issue.

As has been said, in a perfect world no charity should exist, our government's would provide.

But we live in the here and now. As a pensioner, I'm fucking glad the government took the £300 heating allowance away from me (which I didn't need, but happy that those on pension credit kept it.)

Every year I'd pick a charity of my choosing to spend tax payers money on. Which charity I personally chose to give tax payers money to, shouldn't be for me to decide, it should be for the tax payer, via the elected government to decide.

Remember David Cameron's 'Big Society?' He wanted quite the opposite; no government responsibility for countless issues, with charities and volunteers taking on those tasks, functions and responsibilities. A Tory dream; a nightmare for the rest of us.