At least charity employees are free or cheap, compared to government workers; and you can actually fire them if they don't work out. Same is not true of government employees.

An almost wholly-owned state subsidiary runs an article pointing out that many charities have become almost wholly-
owned state subsidiary? I'm not quite sure how to read this...

wh00ps,

What makes you think The Observer is a wholly-owned state subsidiary? The directors of the Scott Trust Limited may be statists to a man and woman, but Guardian Media Group is controlled by that private company, and is more likely to attempt to direct the Government than the other way round.

Kentuckyliz, charity employees are rarely free or cheap these days. They have pay scales similar to the public sector they are effectively part of, and those can be quite generous these days.

London especially is home to thousands of employees in the 'charity sector' who do very nicely indeed, though many of them claim, as do many official public employes, to be working for well under what they'd get in a private company.

Yes, what Pete says is absolutely spot on. In the UK, there are hundreds of charities who do work for Government on a contract basis and are staffed by people on public sector terms and conditions.

There are also many "charities" that the excellent Devil's Kitchen has highlighted on a website (Link) which get most of their funds from the State and spend an awful lot on campaigns for things the government might want to introduce.
The BBC's flagship morning radio political news programme "Today" would have trouble filling the airtime without an endless parade of "Charities" calling on the Government to do this or that, or publishing studies that show something or the other is dangerous and should be regulated.

A good post, and one that vindicated Guy Herbert's policy of actually reading what is to be found in the left press (ratehr than not even seeing sense newspapers without the red haze of fury comming down - as it does with hot tempered people like me).

Mr Cohen is quite correct.

If the government is paying this is not part of Civil Society - it is part of the state.

It is getting private groups to "reshape society" (to quote Mr Cameron - as if civil society was some sort of machine he could alter according to his whims).

We have been here before - it is the "Compassionate Conservativism" of George Walker Bush (some of the people close to Cameron even use the slogan "compassionate conservativism" as if it was a new idea - rather than something they stole from Bush).

And how did it end up - oh yes vast taxpayer subsidies for the organizations that make up the ACORN alliance (that is what Britain needs - more Marxist "community organizers").

"That started before Bush, he just expanded it - and Bush had faith based stuff also".

So he did - and some of the most leftist "religious" groups got the taxpayers money.

And the few non leftist groups that filled in all the forms and jumped through the hoops - well they were soon corrupted.

It is natural that this should be so - govnernment funding, means a government way of doing things, but it is more than that.

It is worse.

Some limits on placed on leftists in formal Civil Service life - make them independent in a "voluntary group" and their are no limits at all on the harm they can do.

They will get into (the old word is "infiltrate") any group that seeks out government money (and such people will be needed - for they are the ones who will be best at getting the money), and the things they will do with the money (in terms of undermining what is left of Civil Society) will make even David Cameron's hair get out of place.