Party political Broadcast

[English Kate]

I don't mind giving money to people who are starving or malnourished, homeless etc through no fault of their own - not matter where they are in the world.
I do object to the amount of money thrown away on benefits given to people who claim to be single parents but live with a partner, people who claim to be disabled and yet are more robust than my 87 year old friend etc etc. Basically people that our taxes support who DON'T deserve anything from us as they are doing better than most anyway.

Oh don't get me started on benefits. I used to work for a bank and everyone I spoke to seemed to get some sort of benefit or tax credit. Be self employed, propping up the rest of society you get diddly squat! Of course working for the bank I wasn't self employed just part of a couple and you get nothing for that either lol

My gripe has nothing to do with charity. It is to do with the political involvement. Some people are very much swayed by political opinion and follow it like a faith. I can imagine some poor soul leaving themselves destitute in the name of politics, because they believe that is what they are being told to do.

It is one thing a politician showing their support by giving to the charity, as all the polititians involved said they did, but to encourage a failing Country on mass to do the same, when they know full well the majority of the population can't even get a loan to buy a house or support themselves?

I just think it is really fool hardy.

With reference to benefit raiders (which is what they are) they have got away with it, because the system is flawed and everyone knows it.

You could also get really frustrated with the millions of pounds being wasted by not bothering to get quotes for stationery and other office equipment. It's not even like they are going for the best quality, but more getting a finger and where ever it lands they will use that source.

64 million or was it billion to be lent by the bank of England, so people can get loans to help us crawl out of the recession and I wonder how much of that will end up being off routed to this charity, because now they feel they aught to and consequently they lose their new house, because they can't keep up with the payment?

Encouraging anyone to spend money when they are living hand to mouth, beggars belief in my eyes.

[davidseven]

Benefits should be a safety net provided by society as a whole, to help those in need to get back on their feet.
It should never be a lifestyle choice or available in perpetuity.
As for the notion of its immediate availability to anyone who alights on our shores, the answer is no.

[Hicky]

It is a fair point about how and why would politicians choose to support one charity over another Kate. In the past where government funding has been spent abroad it has often and most effectively been done through chariteis but by whom tends to have been a civil servent decision made on the basis of who best fits the criteria for the particular job.

When actual politicians become involved in deciding themselves which charity is and is not funded this this tends to become far more a case of them making subjective judgements about which charity they like. The cinsequences are that they select those charities which they find most palatable - eg the ones that make life easier for them, that is to say the one's that make least fuss and do not point out the unpalatable or the consequences of government action or inaction. In practical terms what does this mean - well politicians will not supoort charities who point out corruption, or negligence in foreign govenrments who we support to buy products from or trade arms with etc becuase of the adverse reaction this would get.

Charities should shout about the causes of human suffering wherever it may be aswell as address the consequences but political invovlement will result in them being dissauded from doing so just for the for the comfort of politicians. This will be to the detriment of all except politicians wanting a quiet life.

[SassyAnn]

I've just looked the broadcast up, as I hadn't seen it. It's on http://storify.com/jimmydean37/ditching-...-broadcast ,if anyone else wants to see it. The East Africa Appeal is a DEC organisation which is an umbrella organisation for charities. So they aren't supporting one particular charity, but raising awareness of one cause - which is a different matter.

So should these politicians be promoting the East Africa Appeal, when they didn't promote the Pakistan flood appeal or the Haiti earthquake appeal in the same way? They talked about these other causes in Parliament and got cross-party support for their platitudes (or genuine feelings, maybe). Parliament is in conference recess at the moment... so admittedly it can't be raised and discussed in Parliament.

East Africa - current appeal - affecting over 10 million people
Pakistan flood affected over 18 million people
Haiti earthquake - 3 million people
Tsunami earthquake - Millions of people affected (not quantified), 0.75 million helped.

Interestingly there is nothing on DEC about the Japanese Tsunami, as was seen the Japanese were able to handle the devasting situation pretty much on their own - in a falling recession-hit economy.

So no, I don't think politicians should champion a particular charity. Should they champion a cause? Is it any different to DEC putting up their own free adverts? Personally, an advert by DEC would have been more appealing to me. The Tories assigning their free PP Broadcast to raise awareness of a cause smacks of advanced spin and imagine shaping.

I don't know anybody who slavishly follows the Tory party, but I don't doubt it happens. I do know an elderly lady who is constantly targetted by animal charities. And my mate is bombarded by the Red Cross and St John's Ambulance. That annoys me as they should be the recipients of help, rather than having their few pennies encouraged off them.

Instead of the Tories hijacking the cause, if they genuinely wanted to raise the profile of this issue, they should have got all the parties on board with the opportunity of saying something (as they would have done in Parliament) or left it to DEC.