Blair, Hope and Charity

I’ve decided to do another blog this week because a) my last one was crap (I’m learning, alright?) and b) this happened: http://bit.ly/aLtZEx. And this: http://bit.ly/byi9qh. And, of course, this: http://bit.ly/d3u4dU.

Firstly: every Billionaire, Sportsman and ex-Statesman worth his salt is giving their money away! Is there something they know that we don’t? Is the day of reckoning but days away? Have the Sun Valley club decided that poor is the new rich? Or have they all gone so far up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (http://bit.ly/fAla) that not even a football club can satisfy their cravings?

Secondly: the contrasting reactions to all of this is striking. The majority (led of course by the Daily Wail: http://bit.ly/9vrRWM) had something bad to say about Tony Blair’s donation. Most people were happy about the Dispossessed Campaign and Ellison’s decision.

Many would argue that only Tony Blair (allegedly) started an illegal war. I’m not going to go into that – or indeed whether we should question the donations of Ellison, Gates, Buffet and Dispossessed donors because of the odd skeleton in their closet. The question of whether to turn down a personal or corporate donation because of previous shady practise is a WHOLE other post.

The point I want to make here is that the media are great at painting the blacks and the whites but rarely the greys – and this is never more true than with the way they have dealt with Blair’s donation.

The motivations behind charity donations are not black and white – they are grey and complex.

Of course pure altruism is a part of it – the pure, unadulterated pleasure of knowing that your money is doing some actual good. But there are also shadier motives. Alleviation of guilt is one. Who doesn’t feel a bit guilty sitting on the sofa eating Kettle chips whilst watching Kenyan kids rooting through a rubbish dump? Boasting is another. How many of us has worn a ‘Live Strong’ or ‘Making Poverty History’ bracelet? Or felt smug at 'out-giving' someone on a Justgiving page or charity auction?

Indeed, whole movements have been set up on the premise that altruism is not enough to get people to raise money: RED (http://www.joinred.com/splash.htm) presupposes people a) want stuff and b) want to show people they’ve done good. Comic Relief (http://www.comicrelief.com) and Warchild (http://www.warchild.org.uk/) give people entertainment in return for money. All charities use celebrities to get people's attention.

I could go on but the fact is that charity donation is never as simple or as cynical as this: http://bit.ly/cA2Yxq (what an ironically brazen and opportunistic piece of PR this is, by the way).

Whether you *dredges up his A-Level political theory* subscribe to the Hobbesian/Daily Mail (everyone is inherently evil, dammit, EVIL!) or the Lockeian point of view (everyone is reasonable and LOVELY!), you have to recognize that there are bits of good and bad in all of us.

So rather than pick apart peoples’ motives why can’t we simply rejoice in the good that leads people to donate? Let's prove we are all inherently good by celebrating the good news.

And recognising that a lot of Veterans will be better off for Blair's actions.