Dalrymple points out that Save the Children, like so many charities in the UK,
is not a charity, at least not in the normal sense of the word. It is part of Britain’s charitable-bureaucratic complex. Like most bureaucracies, it is there to serve itself.
Save the Children
- spent £88m on humanitarian assistance in 2009 and £58m on staff wages. (It was far from the worst in this respect: the Child Poverty Action Group spent £1.5m of its income of £2m on wages.)
- In 2009, its chief executive was paid £137,608 which, while not vast by the standards of commercial chief executives, was more than six times the median British wage at the time. This is certainly not what individual donors might think or hope their money is spent on; and it is certainly not what I think charity is.
- Fourteen of its staff earned more than £60,000, and 150 between £30,000 and £40,000.
- It ran a fixed-benefit pension scheme.
- spends about £500,000 a year on efforts in Britain; local government makes donations to it of about £500,000.
- The largest donor to the ‘charity’ by far in 2009 was the government, at £19m. The European Union chipped in with another £12m, the US government with £11m.
- Private donations have been going down as a proportion of the total income of the ‘charity’ (and the expenses of fund-raising are equal to 31% of the funds raised), while government contributions have been rising.
Large charities in Britain
are increasingly in hock to the government and its bureaucratic machinery, with its statist outlook, and share its vocabulary. When I looked on one website advertising charity jobs, I found 21 with salaries between £50,000 and £80,000, with titles such as corporate development manager. Is this really what the old ladies who volunteer at charity shops think they are raising money for?
Save the Children
is not trying to save the children of Britain, it is trying to save the jobs in the British welfare bureaucracy.