So Nell, you hate Christmas do you? Bah, humbug!

Every year, somewhere in the torrent of Christmas-related guffle that the media pour into our consciousness, there is the Grinch piece, the 'I'm going to tell you how much I hate Christmas' article. Such articles are as much part of our preparation for Christmas as the 'we've lost sight of the true meaning' rants and the avalanche of charity appeals each more tragic than the next.

We need people who write stuff like this:

Christmas is the stick with which millions of us beat ourselves into brandy-soaked agony for being poor, single, childless, lonely, or simply bad at being jolly. It’s one thing to be single, skint and surrounded by dysfunctional relatives, but it’s quite another when the entire capitalist world is telling you that this is the most magical time of the year. We seem to have lost the script to a pantomime we never even believed in. We have ruined Christmas, without even trying.

Indeed this article (being as it's in the Guardian and all that) fills a specific sub-sector of the 'I hate Christmas' genre - the 'I hate Christmas because of all the advertising, commercialism and evil capitalist exploitation' piece. You see folks, we really don't have any choice in the matter as the glamour of capitalism's seasonal fairies has enchanted us - we are led astray by the glitter of fairy dust. Now is not the time to deal with the ignorance of this view - suffice it to say that it's nonsense.

However, it's necessary for us to have these sorts of writings just so people like me can tell the authors (in this case one Nell Frizzell) to stop being pathetic, grumpy old kill-joys and get down with the spirit of the time. To remind them of this:

"I do," said Scrooge. "Merry Christmas! What right have you to be merry? What reason have you to be merry? You're poor enough.” 

For this is the message of the Nell Frizzells of our world - like Ebeneezer Scrooge they see Christmas as 'just a day':

...if we really do want to spread comfort and joy this year, we should accept it for what it is; a day. Just a day. Whatever Roy Wood says.

You see our Nell sees Christmas as an intrusion into her misery and her celebration of the misery of others. The sad thing is that (and I've no issue with Nell sitting in the corner with her pet lip, arms crossed and definitely not getting involved in anything that seems even the slightest bit like festivity) what the 'I hate Christmas' brigade don't appreciate is that, if we didn't have Christmas, we'd have to invent it or something pretty much like it. And the very reason for that is that very gloom, misery and despondency that surrounds so many of us - especially in the dank, dreary darkness of winter. The thing Nell evokes in her sorry tale of Christmas past and Christmas present.

More to the point (and it's a very important point) Christmas is still the very antithesis of that supposed selfish capitalism. Even ignoring the God bit, Christmas is a time when we give presents, send blessings and share stuff with our neighbours. Most of the year we don't sing songs with other people (I'll be carolling at The George in Cullingworth tomorrow - beer and song, what could be better), we don't make a specific effort to consider our fellow men near and far, and we don't make an effort to recognise the bonds of family and friendship that hold our society together.

It is people like Nell Frizzell who are the selfish ones (and let me stress that I'm not saying they can't be selfish, just that their selfishness is sad and pathetic) with their self-righteous, posing rejection of Christmas. Po-faced and preachy, Nell refuses to play - no gifts for friends, no smile, no games. Just nonsense about capitalism.  Nell doesn't even plan to replace expensive largess with making a cheaper, personal effort to join in the spirit of sharing - nope, Nell plans to do nothing, to sit there pretending she's a better person because she's opted out of Christmas. Well she's wrong and there's only one thing to say to such people...

Bah, Humbug!

....

Why does this need to be said?

****

Charities should make sure they thank their donors and "say it very quickly", according to the international art dealer and philanthropist Frederick Mulder.

You won't keep many donors if you don't thank them.

...

No austerity for Oxfam!

****

It has been a bumper year for top international aid charity, Oxfam:

The charity's accounts for year end 31 March 2012, published today, show that the overall total combined income rose to £385.5m from £367.5 the previous year. 

Wonderful news - great to discover that, despite trying economic times, the British public continue to dig deep into their pockets to help the third world. Or rather have their pockets dug into by government:

While voluntary income decreased by almost 7 per cent from £138.4m to £129.7m, resources from the government, institutional donors and other public authorities rose by almost 16 per cent from £138.1m to £159.8m. 

You didn't know that over half of Oxfam's income comes from the government did you? Or that this amount has increased year after year? That nice lady in the shop didn't tell you. The chugger didn't tell you. The tear-jerking ads didn't tell you.

And they certainly didn't tell you that much of that increase in Oxfam's funding comes from the EU (the British government cut its funding of the charity) - doubtless in exchange for becoming yet another mindless cheerleader for Euro-babble. And I guess that Oxfam don't care now that the Common Agriculture Programme kills more folk in Africa than the EU saves through its 'generosity' with taxpayers money.

...

Not the budget....

 

Hundreds of articles, blogposts, commentaries and critiques will be published in response to George Osborne's second budget. This isn't one of them.

It's not that I have nothing to say or that the budget is unimportant but that my tuppence worth of comment is of little matter. If I say I like this and hate that it will change nothing and serve little to advance those things I want to see done (or more often, not done).

Instead I want to remark on the important matter of philanthropy - hence the picture of the gates to Foster Park in Denholme. The park was a gift to Denholme from William Foster in 1912 - hence the name - and the gates and railings were given in the 1920s (to mark the coming of age for William's son). The Foster's were, of course, the dominant employer in the village and having gained so much from the place chose to put some of that back.

I suppose we could get all sniffy and say that the Foster family could afford all that generosity, that their riches were built on the back of workers in Denholme and that they really were obligated to "put something back". But that's really the point of it all - poor people may be generous with time and kindness but only the wealthy are able to be so generous with cash or land (or both).

Today, when we want parks, halls or playgrounds we turn to the modern patron of all that is good - the government. And the result of this new tradition is that old philanthropy is pushed aside. The developer is not minded to pass over part of his profit to local beneficiaries when the government - through "section 106 agreements" or other impositions - has already extracted large sums from his pockets. And the businessman is less likely to make the sort of gifts that William Foster made when he sees an ungrateful government taking vast taxes and imposing ever more onerous and expensive regulations.

Philanthopy died as a result of government not because the character of wealthy people changed. And that government with its "progressive" taxes and special imposts on the rich says to such people: "your riches offend us, you are not welcome, just leave your cash for us." So the rich don't give - not in the manner of enhancing their local place. There are a few real benefactors - Barrie Pettman in Patrington, for example - but mostly the rich have turned their back on such giving. Fed up with the sniffy response of government, annoyed by ever higher taxes, the wealthy no longer play the part they played in times past.

For philanthropy to work, we have to celebrate wealth and success - to recognise that the modern day Fosters are there and should be encouraged, supported and smiled upon. And their generosity encouraged rather than scorned.

For philanthropy to work we have to allow space for giving and, above all, treat the wealthy as a national treasure rather than a group to be enviously taxed until they depart to warmer, friendlier shores.

.....

Giving by pressing a button isn't a selfless act of charity - it's a voluntary tax

Charity – that great virtue. The idea of giving without expectation of return, of using our skills, talents and hard cash for the betterment of our less fortunate brothers, for the preservation of the good in the world and for the promotion of other virtues.


How that idea has corrupted and been corrupted. To the point where our Government takes it upon itself to promote the generality of giving – indeed, a random giving to charities that undermines the very idea of that great virtue – I must admit I thought better of Francis Maude:

Cabinet Office minister Frances Maude said a new 'giving' culture could generate £4 billion for charitable causes if people agreed to give one per cent of their income.

The act of charity is demeaned by its sole definition in terms of cash. It gives succour to those righteous left-wing apologists for big government who dislike the idea of good works – it is the puritan idea of salvation through grace made real. Now Mr Maude proposes to orchestrate, manipulate and centralise our charitable acts thereby creating great charitable institutions under the control of whom? The banks? The Government? The Big Lottery?

There are, in my thinking three ways in which the charity of good folk does its work:

1. By the government enforcing ‘charity’ through the tax system – the charities, rather than rely on their own fundraising are commissioned by the Government and its agents to do ‘good work’ as defined by that government.


2. Through gifts to charitable organisations that employ people to undertake the ‘good works’ on our behalf. Money often given with little thought and no consideration of how and to whose benefit those gifts will be directed


3. Through our own actions directed at the needy cause – the few pence we give to a beggar, the fiver we freely give to some poor soul who has missed the train and can’t get home and the hours you might spend volunteering

It does seem to me that, while there’s a case to be made for each of these acts – only the third option is assuredly and genuinely charitable. Edward Rudolf really did go out into the streets of Lambeth to search out waifs and strays and Sue Ryder did volunteer to help the displaced after the Second World War. These were actions that required a degree of effort, of sacrifice and of commitment – something that isn’t encompassed by pressing an ATM button or dropping 50p in the collection box.

If the Government really is serious about charity – and I believe that it is – then the approach should be to condemn the negatives laid on charity by the left. To refute the argument that charity is somehow patronising the poor or that individual acts of generosity – whether in time, cash or spirit – are somehow made necessary only by the inadequacy of government or the paucity of tax income.

And the Government needs to face down those who wish to create great funds under the control of an elite – an essentially left-wing elite. We do not need m ore Big Lottery Funds, Clore Foundations, Comic Reliefs or Children in Needs. We need more individual acts of kindness, generosity and support.

So if you’re planning a charitable act, walk out your front door and look around at how you can help out where you live – perhaps there’s an old people’s lunch club where you can help out or a local soup kitchen. Maybe there’s a junior football club in need of sponsorship. The causes are there and you can help them directly, you can see what you give put to its benefit and you can get the pleasure of real charity.

....