D’oh!! That’ll teach me to type in a hurry!

The charity sector would be the first to admit that it needs governments to act in order to make sustainable and lasting change. While I am sure they appreciate you being their spokesman, I do doubt that they would be offended. Why do they spend so much time trying to change government policy. I am by no means demeaning charity workers as you are trying to imply. Far from it. I have worked very closely with charities before and people who work within one the world’s biggest charities. They do an incredible job but would not need to do nearly as much if they could get the government to do more.

The term band aid is exactly what they are. They are healing the wounds that are caused by poverty, but often their hands are tied when it comes to truely tackling the causes of poverty. That is why the 1980s Band Aid group was such a good name. Geldof recognised that all the money we donated in the 1980s averted a deepeing catasrophe, but unless governments act Ethiopia and others will be on the verge of starvation. Charities have saved an almost incalculable number of lives, but they need government to help them more to achieve their aims. I find it remarkable you can dispute this and would even hazard a guess that Charities would be alarmed that you think it entirely up to them to tackle these problems. But I would never put words in to other people’s mouth like that.

Charities are the knowledge base and driving force, the governments are the ones who can make sustainable step change. They need to work together to do this as on their own they will be largely fire fighting. So Rowling’s donations to both charities and government seems like quite a sensible thing to do to me as it influences the two key players in solving the problem.

As for her knowing Brown. I never claimed she only knew him when he became PM. I simply stated she is close to the Labour party and it is unsurprising that she knows him. She sympathises with Labour’s policies. I fail to see the point you are or Rowena are making.

BUT as she made fallacious claims as her reasoning, she opened herself to criticism.

Garbo, government is not the way to relieve poverty. Relative poverty can NEVER be ended, because it is constantly being redefined by society as it develops and more gadgets become ’standard’. They’re not necessary, but society will always deem a certain number to be in relative poverty because they less than others. This doesn’t mean that they are IN poverty.

Absolute poverty should and can be tackled - and can be eradicated - but even then government is not the best vehicle to do it. Charities are far more efficient at doing it, and they are specialised in a way that government simply cannot. They’re not a “band aid” on poverty, and I think that you are demeaning the entire voluntary sector with that remark. In fact, it’s really quite offensive. All government knows how to do is give money, charity knows how to help people get out of the entire situation.

[With regards to her being a personal friend of Browns - she actually is, and has been said to heave been so for longer before he came PM.]

ThunderDragon’s last blog post..Gordon Brown and the £1 million donation

BUT as she made fallacious claims as her reasoning, she opened herself to criticism.

Garbo, government is not the way to relieve poverty. Relative poverty can NEVER be ended, because it is constantly being redefined by society as it develops and more gadgets become ’standard’. They’re not necessary, but society will always deem a certain number to be in relative poverty because they less than others. This doesn’t mean that they are IN poverty.

Absolute poverty should and can be tackled - and can be eradicated - but even then government is not the best vehicle to do it. Charities are far more efficient at doing it, and they are specialised in a way that government simply cannot. They’re not a “band aid” on poverty, and I think that you are demeaning the entire voluntary sector with that remark. In fact, it’s really quite offensive. All government knows how to do is give money, charity knows how to help people get out of the entire situation.

[With regards to her being a personal friend of Browns - she actually is, and has been said to heave been so for longer before he came PM.]

It is no wonder she is a personal friend of Gordon Brown. I am sure if she supported the Tories she would be a personal friend of David Cameron - though that says more about access to the elite in this country for the super rich than it does about Labour or the Tories.

So there is nothing to be cynical about. There is nothing “funny” going on. She supports Labour, feels that they are best placed to deal with the issues that have affected her in the past and so donated money to them.

But more specifically to JK Rowling, she specifically believes that a government should help single parents - something Labour has been doing with its so called handouts. Some think that they have gone far too far in giving tax credits and that it is encouraging families to break up. The Tories generally think that families should be rewarded for staying together. This is simply an ideological debate, and JK Rowling falls on the side of Labour. It sounds to me a bit like bitter grapes from her for being shafted by the Tories in the mid 1990s. Whatever her reasons, she is clearly more aligned with Labour on this than the Tories - and I dare say a number of other issues.

The reason that I feel your argument is fallacious is that is suggests that she would be better off giving money to charity than the Labour party. As I explain, the real, long term solution to all our problems is not the short term band aid of charities but the long term framework of governments. If she is committed to tackling child and family issues her money and lobbying is far better spent in the long term focused directly on government. She believes that Labour is in a better position than the Tories to do this, and so she is perfectly rational in making this decision. You clearly think the Tories are better placed to this - she doesn’t. That is politics. Ideally of course, you target both - the charities and government… exactly what Rowling has done.

To say that everyone should now boycott Rowling’s books is a bit unfair in my opinion. It ignores the fact that she has donated millions to children’s charities and done a great deal of good for children over the years. One relatively small donation to a party that you are ideologically opposed to seems unfair and unproductive.