After Labour did their level best to spend as much of our money as possible by hosing rivers of cash at any and every shroud waver with a cause, I actually expected better from the slightly less socialist coagulation we have now.

Unfortunately, with iDave’s colours firmly nailed to the Big Society mast, cuts cannot be allowed to happen as that would put him in danger of being lisped at in The House and we can’t have that can we?

As councils up and down the country try and find a way to maintain the salaries of the executives in charge of laudable public services (such as diversity co-ordinators and lesbian outreach intervention teams) the first thing they are looking at chopping is funding to so called charities.

So called, because if they were any good at all then people would be giving voluntarily rather than being forced to hand over ever rising amounts of tax under threat of imprisonment only to see that same cash handed over to the weeks favourite bansturbator (only the righteous need apply before you get any ideas).

What does one do when one’s personal project is in danger of being cut and even ridiculed by the dreadful opposition?

Easy – send in Eric “bubbles” Pickles as your enforcer in chief to send them a message :

Eric Pickles has said he is considering using the law to prevent local authorities passing on “disproportionate” cuts to charities.

The Communities secretary told voluntary groups they were entitled to expect that cuts to their grants would not be proportionally bigger than cuts to local authority budgets overall.

Charities have said cuts in the public funding they receive endanger David Cameron’s Big Society agenda.

Councils face 28% cuts over four years.

Mr Pickles told he National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) conference that local groups have a reasonable expectation that cuts to their grants would not be proportionally bigger than cuts to local authority budgets overall and that charities should have three months notice of any changes.

It doesn’t exactly sit with the PM’s view of localism though does it, when local spending levels are being mandated by the very government that is telling us it wants to give the power back to us in the first place.

Pickles even rolls out the often sighted heavy artillery of “do it voluntarily or we will make sure you do it” just to make sure the Town Clerks Chief Executives realise that they will be wearing concrete shoes if they don’t play ball :

Mr Pickles said he wanted to make it “crystal clear” that ministers would be watching how councils allocated public funds to charities and voluntary groups.

“We have reasonable expectations of how local authorities will conduct themselves,” Mr Pickles said.

“First it is reasonable to expect that councils will not pass on disproportionate cuts to local voluntary and community groups. That they will not inflict bigger reductions to your budgets than they take themselves.

“So if councils are being high-handed – I’ll consider giving our reasonable expectations statutory force.“

Crystal clear meaning horses heads in the bed next week I presume.

It would appear though that it isn’t just Pickles throwing his (substantial) weight about :

Two charities in South and West Yorkshire have been awarded a share of £3.6m government funding.

Doncaster Rape & Sexual Abuse Counselling Service (Drasacs) will benefit from £44,230 providing salaries for “essentual posts”.

Calderdale Parent and Carer’s Council, which helps families with disabled children, has been awarded £21,469.

The Department of Health said the funding was to support charities which otherwise might have had to close.

More of our money given away to causes that are so brilliant they cannot raise it themselves.

I wonder what they plan to spend this vital money on exactly? Surely some actual services to the public who are being skinned for the money?

Unfortunately not :

Chris Easton, from Calderdale Parent and Carer’s Council, said the charity planned to use the money to improve its business plan to meet consumers expectations.

I’m sorry Mr Easton but at £21469 for a business plan you are taking the piss.

How the fuck is that meeting consumers expectations? What direct benefit does it bring to the users of the service?

It looks more like £21k dropped into the back pocket of some funding expert to find ways of extracting even more money out of the state.

If this is not enough to make you bleed from your navel (about the only orifice the state hasn’t been up or in so far) then how about this bit of charitable drivel from our International Development Secretary (emphasis mine):

The government has outlined plans to stop direct development aid to 16 countries and freeze the level of assistance given to India.

But there will be more for Bangladesh, Nigeria and Pakistan as aid is “tightly focused” on those most in need.

International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell said the changes showed “compassion” as they would help the world’s poorest people.

…

Mr Mitchell added: “I believe that the millions of pounds given around the world will make this country proud.”

He praised British “generosity, compassion and humanity”, saying spending on aid was “not only from the British people but for the British people. It contributes to building a strong, more prosperous and safer world”.

It is hardly generosity when we have no say in handing over the money in the first place let alone no say in whether we should be splashing billions all over the world when people here are suffering the fallout of Labours spending splurge and the Bank of England’s laughable attempts to keep inflation under control.

It gets even better when you look at where the new money is going :

UK aid to Pakistan could more than double, reaching 446 million pounds a year, under plans announced by the International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell.

I would suggest to Pakistan that if they want £1 let alone £millions then they should stop their nuclear weapons program and decommission the lot.

Unfortunately I assume this “aid” is either a well timed bribe in good old colonial fashion to keep the natives friendly or maybe it is money channelled through us from the USA to keep Pakistan quiet while they steadily slaughter the locals with drone attacks gone wrong (700 civilians in 2009 alone).

All this “giving” and we have no choice in it whatsoever.

I would not be surprised in the least if The Big Society bill included a forced giving element along the lines of Gordon’s 1% on top of NI rates to fund the NHS. If that comes to pass and Labour gets in again then it wouldn’t be long before “charitable giving” reaches 1984 levels :

Smith, old boy, I’ll tell you why I’m chasing you. It’s that sub you forgot to give me.’

‘Which sub is that?’ said Winston, automatically feeling for money. About a quarter of one’s salary had to be earmarked for voluntary subscriptions, which were so numerous that it was difficult to keep track of them.

They won’t be happy until they have implemented the whole damned book!

As an aside, David Cameron’s Big Society anagrammed is Sodomy Saving Bactericide and I am sure it will be us grabbing our ankles to pay for it all.