International Rescue Committee (IRC) and David Miliband
Discussion
I know I shouldn’t but seeing a slimy David Miliband making an appeal along with DEC for Turkey Syria earthquake disaster makes me not want to contribute.
Let me explain; I cannot reconcile that a failed U.K. politician can be drawing over £1m salary for said IRC charity as it’s President and CEO.
I can’t see past the fact he is only in it for the money and I’ll have no part in supporting him in his new ‘career’.
Sad I know but I am old fashioned in that charities should not be overly rewarding staff, it should be being done for altruistic reasons and not make you wealthy on the way.
Discuss….
Let me explain; I cannot reconcile that a failed U.K. politician can be drawing over £1m salary for said IRC charity as it’s President and CEO.
I can’t see past the fact he is only in it for the money and I’ll have no part in supporting him in his new ‘career’.
Sad I know but I am old fashioned in that charities should not be overly rewarding staff, it should be being done for altruistic reasons and not make you wealthy on the way.
Discuss….
That's how modern charities work.
How much of the donations actually make it to the victims who really need it??
Look at other stuff like save a donkey/elephant/tiger/etc. You donate £3/month - does the donkey get even £1 worth of help?
The worst I have seen was various charities helping out refugees in Congo - there was basically a competition as to which charity had the most plush media centre & largest logos & flags. Must have cost many thousands, which could have gone to genuinely help people.
How much of the donations actually make it to the victims who really need it??
Look at other stuff like save a donkey/elephant/tiger/etc. You donate £3/month - does the donkey get even £1 worth of help?
The worst I have seen was various charities helping out refugees in Congo - there was basically a competition as to which charity had the most plush media centre & largest logos & flags. Must have cost many thousands, which could have gone to genuinely help people.
Biker 1 said:
That's how modern charities work.
How much of the donations actually make it to the victims who really need it??
Look at other stuff like save a donkey/elephant/tiger/etc. You donate £3/month - does the donkey get even £1 worth of help?
The worst I have seen was various charities helping out refugees in Congo - there was basically a competition as to which charity had the most plush media centre & largest logos & flags. Must have cost many thousands, which could have gone to genuinely help people.
I'm not saying there aren't bad charities but this TED talk gave me a fresh perspective on the way I viewed charities and how they could or should use donations:How much of the donations actually make it to the victims who really need it??
Look at other stuff like save a donkey/elephant/tiger/etc. You donate £3/month - does the donkey get even £1 worth of help?
The worst I have seen was various charities helping out refugees in Congo - there was basically a competition as to which charity had the most plush media centre & largest logos & flags. Must have cost many thousands, which could have gone to genuinely help people.
HarryW said:
I know I shouldn’t but seeing a slimy David Miliband making an appeal along with DEC for Turkey Syria earthquake disaster makes me not want to contribute.
Let me explain; I cannot reconcile that a failed U.K. politician can be drawing over £1m salary for said IRC charity as it’s President and CEO.
I can’t see past the fact he is only in it for the money and I’ll have no part in supporting him in his new ‘career’.
Sad I know but I am old fashioned in that charities should not be overly rewarding staff, it should be being done for altruistic reasons and not make you wealthy on the way.
Discuss….
£1m ????? Bugger me sideways with a small aubergine how on earth was that salary set? How does it compare with other charities? How much is it as a percentage of Charity income?Let me explain; I cannot reconcile that a failed U.K. politician can be drawing over £1m salary for said IRC charity as it’s President and CEO.
I can’t see past the fact he is only in it for the money and I’ll have no part in supporting him in his new ‘career’.
Sad I know but I am old fashioned in that charities should not be overly rewarding staff, it should be being done for altruistic reasons and not make you wealthy on the way.
Discuss….
I suppose if he's generating hundreds of millions of income as a result of his connections then he might be worth it. But on the face of it it seems like a lot....
IRC is funded by the US Department of State
https://cis.org/Rush/International-Rescue-Committe...
Difficult to see how David is bringing in a great deal of money with his connections there.
https://cis.org/Rush/International-Rescue-Committe...
Difficult to see how David is bringing in a great deal of money with his connections there.
The ultimate first world pettiness. Thousands are dying and homeless etc but I don’t like a former politician (and have no idea of how good he is at his job or how the remuneration compares) so I’m going to sit in my warm safe house and not contribute solely due to that.
Contributing is voluntary but making up some stupid reason not to is pretty pathetic.
Contributing is voluntary but making up some stupid reason not to is pretty pathetic.
Dingu said:
The ultimate first world pettiness. Thousands are dying and homeless etc but I don’t like a former politician (and have no idea of how good he is at his job or how the remuneration compares) so I’m going to sit in my warm safe house and not contribute solely due to that.
Contributing is voluntary but making up some stupid reason not to is pretty pathetic.
Indeed.Contributing is voluntary but making up some stupid reason not to is pretty pathetic.
As a former Foreign Secretary, he probably has far better access to governments and ministers around the world and his former position can help influence decisions for the charity’s good.
Yes, he’s being well rewarded for it but I thought CEOs were treated like gods on here? Whenever it’s brought up, their pay is always defended regardless of how much and whoever tries to criticise it usually ends being accused of envy. Or is this just a Labour thing?
Charities are big businesses nowadays. They employ a lot of staff and can have a world wide reach and that takes employing skilled people to ensure every penny is squeezed but these type of people cost. They themselves are not charities but their decisions can bring in money that dwarfs what they take out.
Besides, at least he’s doing something good rather than the usual thing of sitting on endless directorships using their past government access and influence for the business’s good.
HarryW said:
I know I shouldn’t but seeing a slimy David Miliband making an appeal along with DEC for Turkey Syria earthquake disaster makes me not want to contribute.
Let me explain; I cannot reconcile that a failed U.K. politician can be drawing over £1m salary for said IRC charity as it’s President and CEO.
I thought it was the left that went in for the politics of envy? Let me explain; I cannot reconcile that a failed U.K. politician can be drawing over £1m salary for said IRC charity as it’s President and CEO.
Biggy Stardust said:
Rivenink said:
Why so envious about what someone else earns?
That's the right line when we're talking about how much wealthy people earn, isn't it?
Because he's asking us to make donations which fund his salary before the 'cause' gets a share.That's the right line when we're talking about how much wealthy people earn, isn't it?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
HarryW said:
I know I shouldn’t but seeing a slimy David Miliband making an appeal along with DEC for Turkey Syria earthquake disaster makes me not want to contribute.
Let me explain; I cannot reconcile that a failed U.K. politician can be drawing over £1m salary for said IRC charity as it’s President and CEO.
I thought it was the left that went in for the politics of envy? Let me explain; I cannot reconcile that a failed U.K. politician can be drawing over £1m salary for said IRC charity as it’s President and CEO.
valiant said:
How is that any different from any other big charity?
It's absolutely identical. I have contempt for the other charities too.https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/10/20/the-scanda...
https://thefourthestategh.com/2022/10/20/how-ghana...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5660021/red-cross-pr...
https://en.thepage.ua/politics/scandal-with-red-cr...
There are many others. I surprisingly can't find a link to the most scandalous involving the chairman of the IRC many years ago.
Edited by Biggy Stardust on Monday 13th February 18:37
TCX said:
Seems more like the 'pretend' left,Milliband,Blair etc go in for politics of hypocrisy,failed politicians using contacts made in office to supercharge post MP earnings,power/cash to some,of the people
Well exactly. Everybody knows that f
king up the country and rinsing the experience for huge piles of cash for the rest of your life is only acceptable behaviour for Conservative politicians. Duh.TCX said:
Seems more like the 'pretend' left,Milliband,Blair etc go in for politics of hypocrisy,failed politicians using contacts made in office to supercharge post MP earnings,power/cash to some,of the people
I've heard Blair described as many things, but failed politician?? Based on what....all those elections he lost? Milliband certainly failed in his bid to be Labour leader, but in hindsight, you could argue that it was in fact a failure of the party to elect the man who was clearly the far better candidate.
It's the way modern charities work.
Appoint a CEO on a massive salary. Appoint directors on massive salaries. Engage advisors and consultants on huge fees. Engage influences and ambassadors on decent salaries and fees. Have a few social media savvy students and volunteers on lower salaries. Maybe bring in a singer or an actor who really cares about whaterver it is as their careerbombs moves into a new phase.
They're now brilliant at "raising awareness" and at lobbying and campagning for extra money so it keeps rolling in. The salaries are covered. So are the private jets, swanky hotels, bonuses and fundraising trips. So are a tier of middle management on not too shabby salaries and expenses to live in third world cities. So are their bar bills and hookers and bribes. And there's even some left over to head out to a disaster zone once in a while for a few photo ops to keep the money rolling in.
And with all their connections and political experience they can even help current politicians look good by donating impressive sums of money (but not really) to the disaster of the day (but not really) while not actually spending all the money they don't have and knowing that what public money they do spend will come back to them in future when the public boot them out and they decide to go and work for charity to give something back.
Maybe that's what they mean by circular economy?
There's plenty of chancers in the corporate world too, and plenty of people on huuge salaries when they probably don't quite earn. There is still however a huge difference in my mind between a profit making company paying big money to wasters out of profits willingly given to them by customers, and a charity appointing chancers and grifters to milk public money and donations given out of compassion by people who believe they are actually providing assistance to people affected by disaster.
I get the argument that running these operations like a big business raises more money and has further reach than people collecting clothes and food for people in need of clothes and food; and I'm sure someone can find authoritative sources to show that a higher proportion of donations to corporate charities find their way to disaster zones, but I don't believe any of it.
Appoint a CEO on a massive salary. Appoint directors on massive salaries. Engage advisors and consultants on huge fees. Engage influences and ambassadors on decent salaries and fees. Have a few social media savvy students and volunteers on lower salaries. Maybe bring in a singer or an actor who really cares about whaterver it is as their career
They're now brilliant at "raising awareness" and at lobbying and campagning for extra money so it keeps rolling in. The salaries are covered. So are the private jets, swanky hotels, bonuses and fundraising trips. So are a tier of middle management on not too shabby salaries and expenses to live in third world cities. So are their bar bills and hookers and bribes. And there's even some left over to head out to a disaster zone once in a while for a few photo ops to keep the money rolling in.
And with all their connections and political experience they can even help current politicians look good by donating impressive sums of money (but not really) to the disaster of the day (but not really) while not actually spending all the money they don't have and knowing that what public money they do spend will come back to them in future when the public boot them out and they decide to go and work for charity to give something back.
Maybe that's what they mean by circular economy?
There's plenty of chancers in the corporate world too, and plenty of people on huuge salaries when they probably don't quite earn. There is still however a huge difference in my mind between a profit making company paying big money to wasters out of profits willingly given to them by customers, and a charity appointing chancers and grifters to milk public money and donations given out of compassion by people who believe they are actually providing assistance to people affected by disaster.
I get the argument that running these operations like a big business raises more money and has further reach than people collecting clothes and food for people in need of clothes and food; and I'm sure someone can find authoritative sources to show that a higher proportion of donations to corporate charities find their way to disaster zones, but I don't believe any of it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff