Thursday, 8 August 2013

Yes, Sir Stephen Bubb – we right-wingers want the poor to be poorer and we hate anyone who tries to help them!

There’s nothing quite as revolting (or funny) as watching a left-winger boxed into a moral corner throwing a hissy-fit. Yesterday, it was Sir Stephen Bubb, a former Labour councillor, who is Chief Executive (how compassion-mongers love using this sexy, powerful, BSD business-world term) of the snappily-titled Association of Chief Executives (there it is again!) of Voluntary Organisations. Williiam Shawcross, the chairman of the Charity Commission, and Tory MP Priti Patel have pointed out that charity chiefs' salaries have rocketed over the past three years. “Sir” Stephen used his blog to hit back:

Let’s be clear on what is happening. Many MPs on the right hate effective charities who campaign. They particularly dislike international charities who have been so effective in raising the concerns of the world’s poor.
Yeah, Steve – you’re spot on. I’ve got no doubt that all Tory MPs – and, of course, every other right-winger in this country – wakes up every morning thinking “God, I hate poor people. I wish they were a lot poorer. And I really, really loathe and despise anyone who lifts a finger to try to help them. Bastards!”

Because, you see, being right-wing means your only interest in life is grabbing a bigger slice of the pie (whose size, of course, is fixed) for yourself while trying to kick the other guy in the face. Hell, where's the fun in being rich unless you can make other people suffer? We get a real kick out of seeing pictures of little black children dying of starvation and dehydration. We love stories about African villagers dying of disease because they don’t have a supply of fresh water or access to medicine. The idea they might actually become economically independent and have enough food or find work or get an education infuriates the hell out of us. As for those do-gooders who try to help them, why, we’d like the Royal Air Force to bomb aid convoys. Hahahahaha!!!

Really, you’d have to be mentally ill – or a left-winger – to even think these thoughts, let alone write them down where other people can read them. I hate socialism, because I believe it is very bad indeed for any society on which it is imposed. Experience has shown this to be the case again and again. But I don’t for one moment believe that more than a handful of socialism’s adherents actually want to make the world a poorer, unhappier place – even though that's what it inevitably does. Why do left-wingers always assume that those of us on the Right actually want more poverty and more suffering? God Almighty – what do you take us for, you idiots!

The objection of many on the Right to charity chiefs paying themselves handsome salaries is twofold. First, we believe that attempts by big charities to help poor countries are often counter-productive, and that charity chiefs are therefore often rewarding themselves for failure (a popular left-wing activity). Tory MP Douglas Carswell, who saw the effects of “Big Charity” in Uganda, where he grew up,  expresses this point well in today’s Telegraph (here):
Western aid agencies are about paying big incomes to Western charity chiefs. Real development for Africa means big incomes being earned by African entrepreneurs and wealth creators... If you want to develop Africa, don’t give money to UK charity bosses; buy some Kenya roses, Zimbabwe fish, Zambia vegetables or Uganda tea.
The other thing that gets up the collective right-wing hooter is the blithe assumption of moral superiority on the part of those who make a living in the charity industry. Here’s Sir Stephen demonstrating the point (in a prose style that demonstrates what passes for his thinking):
Are charity executives rewarded by more than their salaries? Yes. Of course they are. They are making the world the (sic) better place. Their decision to focus their skills and experience on working for good – as opposed to for banks, food companies, law firms and the like – should not be to their financial detriment. 
Come again? So people who work for banks, food companies, law firms (and "the like" – which would encompass every single private sector business in the known universe) are by definition not working for “the good”? Where does this fool imagine that all the lovely lolly his fellow chief executives pay themselves while they’re “making the world the better place” actually comes from? Where does he think every penny of cash that every government in the world spends actually comes from? That’s right! It comes from business and then people who work in it! And the only thing – as Carswell points out – that will stop millions of Third Worlders living and dying in abject poverty, is BUSINESS.

Before you get all morally hoity-toity and holier-than-thou with us, numbnuts, look at the fantastic amounts of money rich (and mainly right-wing) American businessmen give to charity. But, of course, they’re evil uncaring swine compared to the secular saints in the charity “business” who’re only too happy to pay themselves fat salaries while morally lording it over the rest of us.

The sheer horribleness of this peculiarly leftie way of looking at the world is summed up by a truly despicable passage from Bubb’s blog:
Trustees know they need to pay good salaries to attract CEOs at all levels in out (sic) sector. Gone are the days when charities were run by retired colonels and the daughters of the aristocracy!
You vile inverted snob. How dare you sneer at decent, compassionate people who gave unstintingly of their time, energy and talents to help those less fortunate themselves – and all for no financial reward. But then again, we can't have people going around doing charitable works for free, can we? Queers the pitch for those for whom it represents a nice little earner.


  1. There's obviously something in the air at the moment, charitywise.

    Those who would love to see us all neatly numbered, issued with a state ID, have always had great difficulty constructing a case for their socialist dream.

    Then a month or so ago they had a brilliant idea. Giving to charity is obviously a good thing, because charity is obviously a good thing, the more the better, and – horror – at the moment not everyone ticks the Gift Aid box.

    If only we had a national electronic identity management system, Gift Aid would automatically get to its rightful destination. Contrarywise, Gift Aid could clothe state identity management in virtue.

    It was discussed on Dave Birch's blog and revealed a man called Karl Wilding. As an amateur of attractive biogs, Scott, you'll love his.

    I think the upshot of the discussion is that the identity management freaks will have to think again. But you never know, there's a zombie-like quality of these arguments, ...

    1. I think it would be easier if the government simply introduced a compulsory Voluntary Charitable Contribution tax, form a quango to decide which victim groups are to receive the money, and then spent 75% of the revenue developing a vast and unworkable computer programme to make it all work, then admit that it doesn't and then spend 120% of the annual revenue hiring tens of thousands of staff in Scotland and the North East to make it work, and then double the rate of the tax so that there'll be plenty of money available to enable charity chiefs to increase their salaries to private sector levels.