JK Rowling and THAT donation: Politics Decoded Conference Special by Garbo
It’s her money
I am really quite surprised by the hoo-hah that has been created by JK Rowling’s donation to the Labour party. First and foremost, it is her money and she can do what she wants with it. But the real criticism, coming from mainly the Tory supporters, is that if she really wanted to make a difference she would have donated her money to charity. Well let’s look at that:
Governments make the real difference
It is not only noble but essential for those more fortunate financially than those at the bottom end of our society should donate money to charity. Charities such as Save the Children and Oxfam are an incredible force for good in this country and also the developing world. But they work within a framework, a government framework.
Charities put a band aid over the problem. We saw this in Ethiopia in the 1980s – Bob Geldof and co. saved millions of lives, but the problem still remains. The only solution to ending poverty in Ethopia is a strong, democratic government. Yes, western government should be doing more, but unless the framework is there for tackling the issue in Ethiopia the problem will remain.
And so it is the same in the UK, though we are at a different starting point – because we have a more responsible government. A charity can never hope to irradiate child poverty, only a government can do that. So yes, donating money to a charity will put a band aid on a localised problem. But the real way to tackle a problem is for government’s to put in place the frameworks to make wholesale changes possible. And for those who say Labour have done nothing in this area are patently wrong. The problem remains, but we ARE in a better state than we were ten, fifteen, twenty and so on years ago.
She speaks from experience
And so to JK Rowling. Ms Rowling has given money to the Labour party because “David Cameron’s promise of tax perks for the married… is reminiscent of the Conservative government I experienced as a lone parent. It sends the message that the Conservatives still believe a childless, dual-income, but married couple is more deserving of a financial pat on the head than those struggling, as I once was, to keep their families afloat in difficult times.”
She clearly believes that the Labour party will help tackle the issues that have directly affected her life in the past when she was not worth over £500m.
She has given far more many millions to charity
And then there are those hysterical calls to boycott her books. Are they people really so short sighted as to think that she is only giving away £1m to the Labour party? She has given millions away to various charities over the years. She has given a significant donation to an MS charity, given the proceeds of her last book to charity, money to children suffering from cancer. Google it. The list goes on. So yes, boycott her books as some sort of pathetic political demonstration, but the £1m she has given to a party that she feels will make a difference to tackling poverty more than the other party, pails in to insignificance to the total sum of money she has donated to charity.
Ridiculous argument
It is ridiculous to suggest that governments make no difference – a short sighted, lazy and patently untrue accusation. Just some governments make more a difference than others. JK Rowling happens to think that a Labour government will make more of a difference than a Tory one.
If she wants to give money to a political party, be Labour, the Tories or any other party (baring the obvious extremities) in order to make, what she feels, a difference then she should be applauded. It is these people after all that helps keep our party system alive and therefore our democracy. It might even get some of her younger readers more politically engaged.
Finally, if those Tory supporters who feel that JK Rowling is wasting money giving it to the Labour party because government’s do nothing – then I suppose they will also oppose any donations to their own party as that too will be wasted?
Article Series - Politics Decoded 2008-9 by Garbo
- Using the Tories for our own, slightly warped, enjoyment: Politics Decoded with Garbo
- Should he stay or should he go?: Politics Decoded with Garbo
- Time for a change: Politics Decoded with Garbo
- Europe in Ireland’s hands: Politics Decoded with Garbo
- The Gambler’s Gamble Update: Politics Decoded with Garbo
- How Stalin became Mr Bean… Happy Anniversary Gordon: Politics Decoded with Garbo
- The FAQ of Great Britain: Politics Decoded by Garbo
- Politics Decoded Extra: MEPs
- MPs and their expenses: A Politics Decoded weekend special with Garbo
- David Davis has failed: Politics Decoded by Garbo
- Glasgow East - One last banana skin: Politics Decoded with Garbo
- Summer Loving: Politics Decoded with Garbo
- What should Labour do next? Politics Decoded with Garbo
- If Gordon goes, then Labour must call a general election: Politics Decoded by Garbo
- Labour needs to start governing and there is only one way to do that: Politics Decoded with Garbo
- In defence of the USA: by Garbo
- Boris Johnson and CCHQ - a match made in hell? Politics Decoded by Garbo
- Two nations divided by lame duck leaders: Politics Decoded by Garbo
- It is time for Brown to end this farce: Politics Decoded by Garbo
- JK Rowling and THAT donation: Politics Decoded Conference Special by Garbo
- Brown’s speech - The turning point? Politics Decoded Conference Special by Garbo
- This wouldn’t have happened under Campbell: Politics Decoded Conference Special with Garbo
- Tory transport policy: Politics decoded conference special by Garbo
- The end of the world as we know it? - Politics Decoded with Garbo
- Mandelson is back: Politics decoded by Garbo
- George Osborne does it again: Politics Decoded conference special by Garbo
- Reports of Labour’s decline are exaggerated: Politics Decoded by Garbo
- Two forgotten men making very different comebacks: Politics Decoded by Garbo
- The Story of Lance Corporal Jack Mizon: Politics Decoded by Garbo
- Change? Yes. We. Can. Poltics Decoded by Garbo
- Generation Obama & the legacy we should be looking for - Politics Decoded by Garbo
- It’s time the Tories made a move: Politics Decoded by Garbo
- It is time the Good Men did something: Politics Decoded by Garbo
- The Class of 2008 End of Term Reports: Politics Decoded by Garbo
- The Tory Threat: Politics Decoded by Garbo
Categories: All WW, Labour, Party Conferences 2008, Politics Decoded, Westminster Watch
The main issue is that claims are fallacious.
She claims that Labour have “reversed the long-term trend in child poverty, and is one of the leading EU countries in combating child poverty.†Which they haven’t.
And she opposes tax breaks for married couples because she doesn’t understand the reasons - to encourage couples to stay together where possible, rather than to financially reward them for breaking up.
What JK Rowling has shown is that even though she is a very good fantasy writer, she obviously hasn’t paid any attention to reality. In her fantasy world, Labour has ended poverty. In the real world, it’s worse than ever.
The main issue is that claims are faalacious.
She claims that Labour have “reversed the long-term trend in child poverty, and is one of the leading EU countries in combating child poverty.†Which they haven’t.
And she opposes tax breaks for married couples because she doesn’t understand the reasons - to encourage couples to stay together where possible, rather than to financially reward them for breaking up.
What JK Rowling has shown is that even though she is a very good fantasy writer, she obviously hasn’t paid any attention to reality. In her fantasy world, Labour has ended poverty. In the real world, it’s worse than ever.
http://thethunderdragon.co.uk/2008/09/gordon-brown-and-the-1-million-donation.html
ThunderDragon’s last blog post..Dole Queues Continue To Grow
The main issue is that her claims are fallacious.
She claims that Labour have “reversed the long-term trend in child poverty, and is one of the leading EU countries in combating child poverty.†Which they haven’t.
And she opposes tax breaks for married couples because she doesn’t understand the reasons - to encourage couples to stay together where possible, rather than to financially reward them for breaking up.
What JK Rowling has shown is that even though she is a very good fantasy writer, she obviously hasn’t paid any attention to reality. In her fantasy world, Labour has ended poverty. In the real world, it’s worse than ever.
http://thethunderdragon.co.uk/2008/09/gordon-brown-and-the-1-million-donation.html
I’m not a Tory supporter - in fact I support no current political party - but Rowling is a personal friend of the Browns, this Government has presided over a flawed and outrageously unfair devolution settlement which sees discrimination against every man, woman and child in England rampant, so excuse me if I’m cynical about her donation - and the reasons behind it.
Thunderdragon - Firstly, it is far harder to be sure of what the real picture of the child poverty is in this country than a Guardian article. I do believe that Labour could and should have done more during the good years. But like most of the media, poverty is being reported in absolute terms in that article, when what is actually being reported is relative poverty. The picture that is painted is that the rich have got a lot richer whilst the poor have not got any poorer, but as the gap widens more people are termed as in relative poverty. It is a grey area at best – though by no means a win for Labour granted!
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.
Rowena - this isn’t a piece about how good or bad people perceive how well or bad the government has done. The fact is JK Rowling obviously supports the Labour party as she identifies with its policies more so than the other parties. In fact from her experience, a Tory government will be worse for single parents than a Labour one. That is the nature of politics - different people see different ideological solutions to different problems.
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.
Rowena - I might add, your response it quite revealing. You are clearly unhappy with devolution in the country and that is the reason why you are so mad with JK Rowling giving money to Labour party. I assume therefore, than any donation to the Labour party you are opposed to? In which case, even though you say you are not a Tory, you are a actively anti-Labour. It seems a little intolerant to be so against this purely on partisan (or anti-partisan) grounds. She is aligned to Labour and has donated money, god on her. The last thing we want is a situation where we have system where the only party that gets money is the popular one… or the one you support. We’d end up with no opposition and no democracy.
Garbo - my problem is that her reasons are absolute rubbish. Had she simply said “I am giving £1 million of my money to Labour because I support them and their policies” or “because I think that they are best placed to lead the country” etc. then I would have had no issues.
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.]
Garbo - my problem is that her reasons are absolute rubbish. Had she simply said “I am giving £1 million of my money to Labour because I support them and their policies” or “because I think that they are best placed to lead the country” etc. then I would have had no issues.
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
That was exacty my point TD about relative and absolute poverty, hence that guardian article is a little misleading. At no point did I state that absolute poverty could be eradicated. I understand the concept perfectly well.
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.
That was exacty my point TD about relative and absolute poverty, hence that guardian article is a little misleading. At no point did I state that RELATIVE poverty could be eradicated. I understand the concept perfectly well.
D’oh!! That’ll teach me to type in a hurry!