Biting the hand

Last week I was luckily enough to attend NCVO’s Campaign Conference in central London.

It was a very well attended event and Central Hall in Westminster bustled with campaigners, politicians and the media.

A line up of panellists and speakers of all political leanings gave their views on the future of campaigning taking into account the impact of the impending election, technology and the changing voluntary sector.

The panellists had to compete with a ‘Twitterfall’ which ran behind them on a massive screen as they spoke. This involved a massive screen, which displayed delegates’ tweets (as long as they were hash tagged correctly). While some found this distracting, I though it helped to level the playing field and bridge the gap between the panellists and the audience.

Although there were the usual humorous (and not so humorous) comments there were also instant responses to the panel’s comments and key points were repeated.

Although everyone accepted that the general election was not a foregone conclusion and that the sector had to remain politically neutral, the general consensus was that we will be looking at either a Conservative majority or at least a hung parliament.

With this in mind the views of Tories, like Conservative Policy Review chair Oliver Letwin, and right leaning journalists, like the Spectator’s Ed Howker took on extra relevance.

Howker, had angered many in the sector in December by suggesting that people should avoid giving money to large charities because, he claimed, they wasted money on running costs and were too in bed with the Government.

He was less incendiary on the day but he reiterated his view that big charities too often support the government of the day and that their protests are sometimes toothless.

Later in the day, Letwin said that he thought charities should be more about service delivery and less about campaigning. He even warned that the sector might not have the capacity for all the contracts a Conservative government would wish to bestow upon it.

Personally this fills me full of dread.

While these sorts of contracts are vital to many charities and often allow experts in certain areas to get funding for delivering services, the risk of over-reliance on government cash can not be taken lightly.

The Voluntary sector, in my opinion, shouldn’t be a stand in for when the government doesn’t do its job properly.

Voluntary organisations should never feel like they are biting the hand that feeds them when they are forced to make a stand.

I think there is a very clear distinction between fighting for change and then implementing that change once the ‘battle is won’.

Of the two functions the campaigning is vastly more important than the implementing.

Governments can implement change (assuming they have the skills).
They can even buy this skill in from the sector.

What they can’t realistically do is campaign for change in the first place.

This is where the voluntary sector has always stood and I believe it is the most effective.

I attended a workshop at the conference on Campaigning in a Cold Climate.

Jonathan Ellis from the Refugee Council and Emma Moore from PinkStinks both talked passionately about their respective campaigns.

Emma explained that despite the vitriol her campaign (which challenges the stereotypes that young girls are fed) was something that mattered to her as the mother of two young girls. She wasn't making a stand because it was popular, she was making a stand because it mattered.

This should be the keystone of the voluntary sector.

The voluntary sector is not about profit or Government, it’s about change and about building a better world.

Chasing contracts and existing for the sake of existing is nothing more than nest feathering. The Private sector does this very well already, there’s no need for us to compete.