What's The Difference Between These Sick Children?

There was once one principle which Labour believed in, which led to their traditional opposition to devolution, namely that welfare should be geographically equal. It didn't matter if you were in Edinburgh or Eastbourne, Cardiff or Chichester, Belfast or Birmingham, if you were in the same circumstances then wherever you lived, the state would give you the same help.

Several charities lost money by investing in the Icelandic banks when Labour decided to use a little clause in anti-terrorism legislation (Anti-Terrorism, Crime & Security Act 2001) to freeze these banks' assets.

[One of the things about anti-terrorism legislation is that the last thing it is used for is to fight terrorism. Put the "T-word" in the name of a Bill, and the Government can be sure that they can rush it through and any politician who objects is "weak on terrorism." Why not get the next Budget through quickly and with little scrutiny by calling it the Finance & Anti-Terrorism Bill?]

What about Government help for charities affected by this asset-freezing? The official stance is that it would create an "unrealistic precedence."

Unless of course, a charity is based where there are loads of Labour voters (e.g. Manchester) then it will get money from the taxpayer to compensate it for Labour's decision on the Icelandic banks.

A charity for sick children in the middle of Hampshire? Er- Hampshire North West (safe Conservative), Meon Valley (Conservative/Liberal Democrat marginal), Southampton North & Romsey (Liberal Democrat/Conservative marginal), Winchester (safe Liberal Democrat). There are neither enough Labour supporters for the Government to say "Thank you- have some dosh" to nor enough potential Labour supporters for the Government to say "If we help these sick children we could get an MP elected here."

-------------

There is another issue I want to address. Sometimes, it is sneered that these charities are being "greedy" and are simply looking for money.

Years of Live Aids, disaster appeals and Bob Geldof telling us to give our "f**king money" seem to have created the idea that charities work (or ought to work) on a MIMO (Money In, Money Out) method- namely that they get £1 and then immediately spend it on helping someone.

Since May 1997, there has been a Cabinet post of International Development Secretary (replacing the old non-Cabinet post of Minister for Overseas Development). Note the "d-word." There is no International Aid Secretary. The logic accepted by mainstream parties is that you help the Two-Thirds World by development, by long-term planning, and that means setting money aside.

And the same thing applies for domestic charities. They need to plan, to budget, to have aims. If they need a few million to build an extension, then they can't cross their fingers and hope that one day Bill Gates will knock on their door. They need to raise the money, save it, invest it- and then build.