I’ve just read a study on MPs’ views on charities’ actions by nfpSynergy.
Given that it took 3 individuals to email 154 MPs how acceptable it was to for charities to undertake the 6 different activities listed below it left me a bit cold. Especially as the report was given such an ostentatious and grandiose title of “Charity Parliamentary Monitor” – phew, pretty impressive, eh?
The 6 charity activities in the report that MPs had to say were acceptable or not were:
- “challenging government policy”
- “holding a parliamentary reception”
- “highlighting the effects of a policy on its beneficiaries”
- “challenging the policies of political parties”
- “a state-funded charity challenging government policy”
A bit of analysis by one of the 3 “box-tick counters” or someone else from nfpSynergy would have been useful.
I’m not sure what the point of the study is – what inference we’re supposed to take from these figures. Are charities supposed to turn around and say, “look only 42% of Tory MPs think its ok for us to challenge government policy -maybe we should think again about doing anything”
Or 90% of MPs think it’s acceptable to hold a parliamentary reception so that perhaps charities should be holding one every fortnight.
If someone is attacking you, your beneficiaries and what you believe is right and committed to campaigning about, shouldn’t you consider perhaps doing more of what they say they don’t like rather than trying to please them?
And is it that important what MPs say on what’s acceptable? Isn’t it much more important to assess how MPs respond to the campaigning actions of charities, learn from this and adapt your actions for the future to gain more campaigning success?