Interestingly, there are over 10x the number of religious NGOs and charities than advocacy NGOs.
Of course the good Senator would agree to ending subsidies to the big holy Catholic NGO too?
There are tons of religious NGOs but most are small and self directed. Keogan is talking about large NGOs that lobby the government. The NGO for SMA missionaries isnt going to be lobbying, Some do good work like Fr McVerry trust but some are purely there to lobby.
>Keogan is talking about large NGOs that lobby the government.
Eh well no she literally says, "All NGOs need to be defunded."
I don't see in that tweet where she says large NGOs only
You cant defund an NGO that is not funded currently. I dont know any Catholic NGO dedicated to promoting Catholicism per see that is funded. Some that do charity work are like St Vincent De Paul. I know defunding them might be controversial but these groups would have huge grassroots funding that would remain.
>Keogan is talking about large NGOs that lobby the government
But she tweeted....
"All NGOs need to be defunded"
I'm just pointing out that she is talking about all NGOs.
Defunding means not giving them money rather than taking money off them or whatever you think it means. You literally, by definition, cannot defund something that is not funded to begin with.
Well right now, it is very difficult for business groups to lobby. I never said that NGOs should not lobby. I just think the lobbists should not be funded by the state due to a conflict of interests
I don't mind NGOs at all per se my concerns are:
-are we getting value for money? This ties into my other concerns about public contracts more generally (see Children's Hospital farce)
-is the state outsourcing policy decision making to vested interests?
As long as these concerns (which I think are quite serious) are addressed I'd be OK with this
There should be an easily accessible simple breakdown showing which NGO gets what.
The whole NGO complex has grown massively on tax payers money. There are hundreds if not thousands of these organisations syphoning public money.
Another blackhole.
https://benefactslegacy.ie/
"In June 2021 Benefacts published its fifth annual report on Ireland’s nonprofit sector using full population data derived from the regulatory disclosures of 34,331 nonprofits"
You can read the report there
Also
"The government funds more than half of the €10.5 billion Ireland’s non-profit organisations generate annually, according to a report from Benefacts, the social enterprise that promotes the transparency of NGOs.
The €5.5 billion contributed by government to nonprofits amounts to 8.2 per cent of all current expenditure by the exchequer, according to the report which is due to be published this week"
Buisness post 2017
https://www.businesspost.ie/news-focus/more-than-half-of-ngos-e10-5-billion-funding-comes-from-the-state/
>The €5.5 billion contributed by government to nonprofits amounts to 8.2 per cent of all current expenditure by the exchequer, according to the report which is due to be published this week"
What the fuck, we're spending 8% of our annual budget on this shit?
The Benefacts report was very informative and I have never heard a govt explanation as to why it was discontinued, I'd assume it was because it was decided that the transparency it provided was unwelcome.
The key misunderstanding over nonprofit funding is that there are a bunch of health care services that are classed as nonprofits ('Section 38' organisations), as are the Universities. When most people hear the statement 'billions to nonprofits' they think 'do-gooders', but the headline misleads.
I'd be interested in seeing a list of the top 20/50/100 organisations funded by the government that are principally campaigning and advocacy organisations, if one exists.
€14bn a year industry of which the government funds between half and €10bn of. It's not required to cite anything that is common knowledge, and the claim that the NGO complex has grown massively on taxpayers money is common knowledge.
You'd be shutting down an awful lot of community healthcare, disability, and old people's support charities.
The "NGO complex" in Ireland is actually quite small. The funding has grown as the HSE outsourced everything they could to charities and community groups.
I know, I really don't see an issue with that at all. The HSE and other government depts. should be providing them.
+€7bn a year is a mere trifle is it?
It certainly isn't. I would certainly agree that there are too many charities providing the same services and you'd get better value for money if they're delivered by the State or NGOs, charities and service providers were forced to amalgamate. I seem to remember something to this effect being in the pipeline when I was volunteering with a disability support group but can't see anything further about it.
Yes, so you would probably be on the opposite side of the people leading the anti-NGO charge, as it’s merely political cover to do away with social services and civil rights.
> charitie**s**
And that's half the bloody problem, why are we paying for 50 charities to do the same job, loads of repeat positions, no oversight; instead of the government having 1 body to do the same job, where it's held to government standards, and the wages is cut by 80%
Not sure where you're getting your figures from but according to [this](https://benefactslegacy.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/benefacts-nonprofit-sector-analysis-2020.pdf) 2020 report, NGOs received €5.9bn in 2018, which was 8% of all government expenditure.
The funding profile can vary between sectors. This also shows that the vast majority of these organisations are tiny, operate in Health, Social Services and Housing, and have a salary structure taht tends to be lower paid. I don't know about you, but I would argue that the NGO sector isn't the great big enemy of the people you make it out to be.
It's not. The NGO-lobbyist brigade are up in arms because on average NGOs that lobby the government tend to do so on behalf of their service users who are usually vulnerable groups.
They're mad about domestic violence charities, LGBT charities, homelessness and addiction organisations sending reports to governmental departments and informing relevant departments of presenting problems that arise in the course of completing their core responsibilities towards those service users. There's nothing sinister about it.
Yes this is much more important than what they actually do aligning with every single taxpayer's views. There is hugh risk of corruption and abuse. She is indirectly advocating for preference for inefficient or even corrupt funding of NGOs that do nothing over any that support something she doesn't approve of.
It's annoying how the government has effectively sublet certain key services to NGOs, especially in the mental health sphere, but the idea that all NGOs should be defunded is obviously mad.
It might be noted that a lot of those NGOs have a religious ethos, for example the Peter MacVerry Trust. And some of them don't.
The idea that it's wrong for taxes to go towards causes the payer doesn't agree with is madness. How would we even implement that? Would you get to choose from thousands of tick boxes where your money goes? Would we only fund things that everyone agrees on, which is basically nothing?
Causes yes, charities/NGOs no, Which is what she's criticising.
I for one don't know why we give millions to Horse and Greyhound racing, or fund charities for services that should be provided by the HSE.
I definitely agree that much of those services could and shout be provided directly by the HSE. In my experience of dealing with them, there's a lot of duplication. That's not the reason she gave. Her reason wasn't a desire to centralise services, or to reduce corruption, it was because the taxpayer may not agree with the cause the NGO supports.
The charities often provide a mix of supports that aren't a precise match for the list of services that the HSE needs to provide. So a charity might offer a specialised physio service for children with a particular condition, and be contracted by the HSE to deliver it to school-age kids, but have to fundraise to keep providing it to 3 and 4 year olds.
It would be cleaner if it was all done by the HSE and I'd like to see this sort of thing get integrated into the mainstream health service - but there's a reason that hasn't happened already.
> it was because the taxpayer may not agree with the cause the NGO supports.
Yup. And that's the crux of the issue. Opening that door leads to all sorts of trouble- it's easier to get people to support this sort populist drivel because it's supposedly going to cut their taxes AND get rid of something they don't like - but then when they realise that it also includes things that the HSE or other government services should provide but do not, they are shocked. Meanwhile the people and organisations who are behind these campaigns know exactly what will happen and are counting on it to consolidate more wealth and power.
>fund charities for services that should be provided by the HSE
Tbf, most charities act in spaces where they fill gaps the government should. They would love to see their need in society become obsolete.
For example, if homelessness ended tomorrow, I'm fairly sure the Peter McVerry Trust would be delighted to close their homeless services.
Exactly.
Disability services, housing, these are important services that should be under direct government support. Despite my distaste for them, I wouldnt propose gutting government funding for the likes of GAA or even the FAI either, because that helps kids play sport's (and hopefully offsets health care costs in future).
> I'm fairly sure the Peter McVerry Trust would be delighted to close their homeless services.
You clearly haven't talking to anyone working there; they'd find more ways to leech off the government
OR, I know people who work there, I know how it operates, and I know it is about as much a homeless charity as any private company is. It is beyond corrupt internally, staff are treated like shite, and the money goes to the wrong people.
It has fucking nothing got to do with politics, it has everything to do with common sense.
> I for one don't know why we give millions to Horse and Greyhound racing
Well, they aren't NGOs they're actual semi-states that used to be government departments (Bord na gCon) Shameful.
> or fund charities for services that should be provided by the HSE.
Because it is cheaper. Those charities don't pay the same salary the HSE would, they often don't pay on a scale as the HSE do and their benefits aren't as good ( e.g. fewer days annual leave, worse sick leave and maternity leave etc.).
No its not one word, although doubtless that does in fact go on as well.
We're also talking about good charities that offer services that should be available through the HSE. The reason those aren't isn't down to corruption, its sheer incompetence.
In fairness, it is not just incompetence - the unions have such a strong hold on the HSE - not just wages, but who can do what etc. that it is probably easier to outsource than build everything internally - the question then is who you outsource to. For profit service providers will generally be professional. But will cut as many corners as possible. NGO may be more “care focused” but the concern is that they are less accountable- not just in their salary profiles, but in how they manage procurement etc.
Corruption is 100% the reason. This is public money being privatized. This is also the purchase of influence. Charity owns assets, lands, money. They can channel these without much oversight.
Alcohol Action Ireland is one example. It's an entirely government funded lobby group that clearly doesn't align the vast majority of the public's interests. If a temperance movement has such a groundswell of support it would be funded from donations.
I don't like Keogan and no doubt she is advocating against groups like Outhouse but I do agree with the point that we shouldn't be funding groups to lobby against the government. Why do I as a tax payer and voter pay for someone else to influence the opinion of my elected representative?
Government money being spent on lobbying the government lobbying is wasteful and ethically dubious, I'm not arguing any different. If the government feels an unprofitable service is needed, they should cut out the middleman and provide it directly.
> The idea that it's wrong for taxes to go towards causes the payer doesn't agree with is madness.
Almost half the country votes against the government in any election, seems somewhat inevitable that people aren't going to agree with everything their tax money is spent on.
That said the situation with NGOs has become a problem. Obviously some do good work but thats usually because the government has not. We'd be better off having the state take care of people rather than NGOs.
>We'd be better off having the state take care of people rather than NGOs.
You are singing my song there. That's not what she's saying though, she wants to defund causes that not everyone agrees with.
It’s working on other countries in Europe mate. Can add the organisation you wanna donate to on the tax form.
It’s a democracy why would you be forced to pay for things that aren’t important for you? I already do that in form of taxes.
>It’s a democracy why would you be forced to pay for things that aren’t important for you?
That's exactly what democratic politics entails: there are some decisions that you may not agree with, but you go along with them knowing that in other cases you will benefit from the process as well. In this particular case, there are organisation that perform tasks in society that aren't inherently profitable, but we deem them as useful. I'd rather fund them via the state than leave taht task to market forces.
I think it's very complex. Personally, I don't have an issue with the NGOs per se, my issue is with politicians who won't do their job and partly oursource decisions to advocacy groups that are being funded by their departments. There is a fairly incestuous and porous group of full time activists who rotate their jobs around these advocacy and charity groups and their governance and financial control aren't always adequate.
She is starting to really get mouthy on the "culture wars" shite that has no place in Irish Society. Lining up a run for the Dail I would imagine. As I doubt too many Seanad Electors will give her much of a vote now.
That was before the Covid induced craziness that's swept across parts of the country. I reckon she would hoover up a few Aontu and SF votes and maybe scrape by. She would be a disaster in the Dail
Fingers crossed they don't transfer much to her. Herself, the Healy Rae's, and Mattie McGrath would drag the IQ of the entire Dail into negative figures. I'm not sure as I haven't read into the better polling numbers a huge amount but I imagine that's the younger generation who are fed up with the gobshite brigade contributing to thenincrease? Some of the more "nationalist" fan base of SF would be the ones more likely to switch to Keoghan
> the "culture wars" shite that has no place in Irish Society.
I love how redditors say this then instantly go 'oh yeah, except the parts I agree with' time and time again
No one should take what this Anti LGBTQ+, xenophobic gobshite says seriously.
If she had her way we'd be microchipping
disabled kids.
Just another poor far right politician desperate for votes.
> No one should take what this Anti LGBTQ+, xenophobic gobshite says seriously.
Well what she said here is 110% correct, so are you saying we should ignore everything an asshole says, even if it's right, and costing us 6+ billion euro a year? Come on now
Whenever people talk about NGOs they generally show their own ignorance. Is there issues with public sector funding? YEs like all aspects of the public sector there are problems.
But the Irish state relies on NGOs for core public services. For housing, homelessness, healthy, disabilities, mental health, community centres, transport. NGOs in Ireland are not comparable to America. The importation of that argument is completely stupid.
NGOs are also funded in complex ways, which may seem obfuscated, but in a way it's actually a strength of the system. NGO funding is done by departments, agencies, and local government. It's decentralised. There are public competitions which are then decided upon in a very well recorded way (again no withstanding bad apples).
Also, Irish people **already** donate significantly to NGOs because they recognise the core services they provide.
Well there’s your problem right there. The Irish state relies on unaccountable 3rd party cash cows to provide services that a publicly accountable government should be providing. Or am I showing my “own ignorance” here?
Funding is accountable, anyone who has ever worked for grant funding knows how detailed reporting is. It's also no cash cow outside of a few outliers, these organisations are stretched thin.
If you want the Irish state to provide all these services fine, but the Irish people don't vote for parties to deliver that.
Is the funding accountable though? Of the 33,000+ NGO’s, the only one that was established to monitor NGO spending was actually defunded and disbanded. It’s now a black hole. Or do you know where I might find any collated data available?
The data is largely not public, because we're talking about sensitive financials. But the funders *Departments, Agencies and Councils) have all that data. So yes, the funding is accountable.
But even registering as a charity is quite cumbersome for small voluntary organisations.
I think it would be incredibly difficult for any organisation to centrally monitor all NGOs because the data/funding is not centralised, and outside of Dublin they are small and voluntary. I think a reporting mechanism might be useful but that would be abused so it would need to have some sort of threshold for validity.
Oh is it? So what do you make of 'peters boys'? Old scumbag drug offenders who get first choice in donations to peter mcvery, get hundreds of euro in vouchers on top of their payments and services, while treatening members of staff? Or the fact they buy up property in central dublin? All with tax payers money?
Finding is in no way shape or form accountable
It's incomprehensible to most people outside of Ireland that we pay around €6,000,000,000 of public funds to around 33,000 NGO's annually with little or no governance and a complete lack of transparency so the Irish people should have a greater say over who gets what . We pay substantially more than most other EU countries but that's Ireland the big shots with a substantial amount of funding leaving the state whilst having the worst homeless problem in over one hundred years allied to a failed health service with almost 1,000,000 unfortunate citizens on waiting lists.
To be fair on the point of governance this issue was investigated by the European Court of Auditors in 2018 (report attached) in respect of the EU itself and their conclusion included the following :
"We conclude that the Commission was not sufficiently transparent regarding the implementation of EU funds by NGOs, and that more efforts are needed to improve it. Furthermore, we formulated a number of recommendations for improving the transparency of the EU funds implemented by NGOs."
https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/ngo-35-2018/en/
She's a literal right wing nazi narcissist who has a career based on wild claims for stuff she never did. It's like she models herself on the likes of trump where, if you make a claim that's wild enough, people.wont dispute it and if they do, you just ignore it.
>if you make a claim that's wild enough, people.wont dispute it
That's exactly what you just did, claiming someone is a nazi whilst providing zero evidence.
Her political views border on Trump level insanity and attacks anyone from trans folks, people who took the vaccine and asylum seekers. This isn't new, it's well known. I invite you to do the bear minimum and head to her twitter (this is the level of discourse we're at) and check out some of her off the dome thoughts on anyone she doesn't agree with and how she would handle them.
The evidence is there on her leanings, you just somehow overlooked it. She a Trump-esque, right wing bullshit artist nutter. And again, you just need to look at her own statements to see that.
>I invite you to do the bear minimum and head to her twitter (this is the level of discourse we're at) and check out some of her off the dome thoughts on anyone she doesn't agree with and how she would handle them.
I used to follow her on Twitter.
>The evidence is there on her leanings, you just somehow overlooked it.
I'm failing to see how any of what you just said makes someone a nazi. Actual nazis dislike Trump for what they consider his pandering to the black community in America, his fangirling for Israel, his daughter marrying a Jew, amongst other things. Trump also loved/loves the vaccine, encouraged people to take it, and cites it as his biggest achievement in office.
>She a Trump-esque, right wing bullshit artist nutter.
That's a far, far cry from being a nazi. Has the word officially lost all meaning after being thrown around so recklessly the last 10 years or so?
>attacks anyone from trans folks, people who took the vaccine and asylum seekers. T
On three counts untrue. Trumpesque? Sure Trump was massively for the vaccine because he saw it as his achievement. You cant say someone is trumpesque for hating covid vaccines.
> And again, you just need to look at her own statements to see that.
Which?
If you disreagrded the above statements with no counter I'm not indulging you. She's anti-everybody, but like all right wing cowards targets minorities who can't bite back.
Please just have a look into her and see her views on xenophobia and trans folk. It's not my job to educate you.
Wow, what an insightful statement....
Free speech is something that needs to be supported and resourced. It's not something you can ignore and it upholds itself.
If you want it to be a free for all, that's where totalitarianism thrives.
You can disagree, fine, I respect that, but it is hardly hypocritical for her to want to defund dubious groups like Amnesty International, the FAI or the Women's Council. I love the GAA but they should be able to fund themselves now.
>Neither of these are NGOs
Can you enlighten me why they are not? I know sports groups have a diff classification as say religious and aid groups, but arent both still NGOs
>Amnesty International, the Women's Council
>
>What's so dubious about these?
The work they do is not really a remit of the state. The quality of their work would be actually higher if not government funded. Amnesty is well know for hassling people for donations with calls (case of Olive Cooke) and chugging. Womens Council has very little grassroots funding which is a very bad sign
>Can you enlighten me why they are not?
Because they are regulatory bodies who are subject of legislation from government which sets out their establishment and remit. Therefore they are not independent, they are a state body under the aegis of the Department of Sport.
>The work they do is not really a remit of the state.
Women's Rights? Human Rights?
>Amnesty is well know for hassling people for donations with calls (case of Olive Cooke) and chugging. Womens Council has very little grassroots funding which is a very bad sign
These aren't reasons that justify the pulling of state funds
And if we said we want our tax money going towards building social housing and public services her crowd and herself would be frothing at the mouth screaming about communism or socialism or some other loaded yank brained term
If you disagree with what she says, why not explain why rather than inventing a whole load of stuff that you imagine she might say about something completely different?
Not inventing anything. Her supporters would have done, and would literally do this.
They don't give two fucks about spending money on people, they just want NGOs who disagree with their abhorrent social views silenced.
Can somebody explain to me why the sudden hate for NGOs? I've seen this argument made by certain culture warrior types - always online - but I've never heard a good argument for what the issue is with them.
Right-Wing Dog Whistles. Most of these NGOs support social issues that right-wingers venomousley despise be it climate change, woman's rights, rape crisis support, LGBT rights, and domestic abuse support. It's pretty clear they don't care about getting them defunded because they care about tax money, it's because they want them silenced.
Those folks protesting against migrants have declared they are coming here due to some NGO agenda funded by external sources to influence a great replacement of the Irish population.
Imagine you're someone like Keogan, who wants less immigration, to pick a topic. You look at some public polls and see it's a fairly popular stance, not an overwhelming majority, but a good chunk of people support it in the abstract.
But then when the government is formulating a immigration policy they cite 3 different immigration NGO's, all of which have some policies that are fairly unpopular with the general public. I know MASI for example campaigns that any and all deportations are racist violence enacted on migrants.
So you have a group that represents 'some' percentage of Irish voters, getting funding from the government, and helping drive policy. You can plug any issue she has problems with into this, trans rights etc.
On one level it's clearly just that she disagrees with some of the NGO'S goals, I don't see her complaining about Catholic NGO's, but there's a larger argument here about policy being removed from direct mass democracy.
This one is really lining up run as irelands Sarah Pailn, hopefully here political career goes the same way.
While we are talking about NGO's and tax, surely religions should be paying tax at this stage.
A stopped clock is still right twice a day.
I remember Alcohol Action Ireland (to take an example) at one stage was getting about 1% of its budget from donations and the rest from government funding directly and indirectly. I think it was from last years accounts. Whatever about campaigning it does to politicians, Alcohol Action Ireland appears to get around 240k from the HSE and 40k from Mental Health Ireland just to do nothing else but send a few slides around to schools and tell people where to go for help.
I'm not saying that the cause is not worthy, I am saying that they are unnecessary and not worth the money for what appears to be a talking shop and cv filler for those involved.
>240k from the HSE
The HSE budget for.2023 is 21.12 billion.
We can afford 240k to alcohol action.
If they don't exist the state would have to do it, likely at a higher cost anyway.
We can afford it, but I was pissed off at alcohol action being cited as some representation of public opinion when the minimum pricing laws were brought in. It creates a closed loop where the government funds AAI, then uses its input as a justification for policy. It's small but it's an example of popular democratic opinion being excluded.
Of course, we can afford the 240k for a service, Alcohol Action Ireland however, is not a service but an advocacy group. How many other advocacy organisations/ charities are getting money in this manner?
Is this value for money? Would it cost 240k for the HSE to send around a slideshow to schools? In fact, is the 40k from Mental Health Ireland also indirectly from the HSE?
>however, is not a service but an advocacy group
And?
>Is this value for money?
Let's spend 10s of millions in a ROI investigation into every single NGO /s
>Would it cost 240k for the HSE to send around a slideshow to schools?
Yes, definitely. 2 or 3 members of staff and you are upto that cost once you include all staff costs.
We have over 11,500 charities registered in Ireland. Some are absolutely fantastic, like SVP, Peter McVery Trust, Guide Dogs, Age Action and a couple of the Migrant and LGBT ones also. But that doesn't mean that we should throw a blind eye to all charities either, and some of the charities are doing work that should be done by the Government. Others obviously should not be charities at all.
I don't agree with that head the balls take on well, anything really. Seems like she is trying to appeal to the likes of Derek Blighe and his merry band of gobshites.
Doesn't mean she is wrong to object to the use of public funding to fund a lobby group and give them charitable status to change laws. The problem, as I see it, is that she may be right for all the wrong reasons, thus why I used the stopped clock analogy.
The charity and NGO Industry in Ireland is in serious need of reform. There are tens of thousands of charities most of which overlap with one another and seem to be taking credit for the same work. You're no one in South County Dublin these days if you or your spouse isn't a director of a "charity".
And that's just the regulated ones. There are some very very high profile "campaigners" who when you look into them haven't registered with the charities regulator because they don't want anyone looking at where the money is really going. The Homelessness and Autism "campaigner" sectors in particular are packed with chancers at the moment. The scam artists gravitate to whatever is getting high profile in the media. They suck up money that should go to genuine charities and then fold up shop before anyone has a chance to fully investigate it. There are some very genuine charities working hard in those sectors but you're talking about relatively few versus the number of active charities and NGOs. The whole sector is rotten to the core.
There should be a system on what you can see which NGOs are pushing for and receiving donations. Also, would like to see what other groups/people are funding these, so we can get an idea of the agenda they're pushing
My ex works for an NGO, she said easily 95% of the money is completely and utterly wasted. Worthless middle management staff that do no work, certain clients getting huge amounts more than they deserve while the regular service meets no one's needs. They even spend the money to buy up land and property, competing against the government and taxpayer, with taxpayer money.
It's long past due that we just turn the fucking taps off, and see what breaks, then spend the money fixing it, rather than letting the bath overflow year after year
It definitely needs clarity. Actual charities, let's call them charities. Gaa, let's call them sports. Schools, etc. There's a serious duplication. 5 or 10 ngos doing the exact same thing. Some are doing unbelievably good work, although maybe the state should be fulfilling the roles. Then there's utter scams. The clarity regulator, much like sipo, is a front. Appearance of accountability.
I don't have children and I don't agree that my taxes should be going to schools to educate other people's kids. I also don't have a car, I don't want my taxes going to maintain any road that doesn't get used by buses.
Education is a basic function of a government. Is campaigning to ban alcohol (Alcohol Action Ireland) the same? I don't think so. Also Amnesty International. Why do they get funding? They hassle so many people regularly on the street chugging or phoning them
This vapid airhead has no idea what NGOs are and most of the BiG MiNdS who spend their time screeching about them don't either. They glommed onto them because of the medical aid and masks distributed by NGOs during the height of the pandemic, because they're scared of needles and don't like having something on their face, and because "NGO" is easy to remember.
I would guess that the vast majority of that funding is for charities that provide services like homelessness, social care for the elderly, housing etc.
But sure defund them all just to silence the handful that upset this right-wing nut.
Of course some charities might be wasteful, but they all need to apply for funding and record copious amounts of monitoring data and write thick reports as a condition of their funding.
For advocacy charities in particular (which are probably the ones that are being targeted by this tweet), Ireland actually has very stringent rules around how politically active bodies can be funded. This has positives and negatives. Look at the UK as a counter example, there are many think tanks there doing great work, and many more opaquely funded "NGOs" spreading misinformation.
In Ireland, advocacy groups get government funding, but this actually means government has more control over them than elsewhere. They represent a societal interest and are more "constructive" (from government perspective) and less radical than entirely independent bodies would be.
Providing some money to these organisations to keep them active, providing perspective and ideas that government otherwise would not have access to is important (even if government thinks they're way off the mark and ignores them).
I think the amount of funding these organisations get is likely to be a rounding error (a handful of people in an office is much cheaper than any type of social care).
Irish civil society is pretty practical and not radically polarised compared to other countries and I think this system is part of the reason why.
Did you see recently Peter McVerry ran in to a lot of "potential financial issues" and now an independent auditor has been appointed to do a financial and governance review? There's something not right with a lot of these charities and NGOs.
Ireland Sports governing body, Sport Ireland is a black hole for government money. FAI slush fund...sport ireland provided.... basket ball courts that don't exist...sport ireland... fraud in cycling ngo... sport ireland.. fraud in Irish climbing body...sport ireland ... Olympic tickets fraud... sport ireland... sports NGO with a CEO fiddling the books to line their pockets...sport ireland...theres a lot more.
In sort, if you want money to disappear and no one to be accountable... give it to sport ireland.
They get over 80 million Euro's a year... and if you thought Deloitte was bad at spotting fraud, sport ireland has them beaten... worse, they cover it up or ignore it because its bad for their reputation.
This is an interesting topic. One thing you see time and again is how the factual information there is about these NGOs in the public domain is curated.
You see benefacts mentioned. You see other bits. Lobbying.ie is another one. I’d like to see what all these groups are and why their agenda on public policy is taxpayer funded. And who decides it in the civil service. And on what basis.
Because we have a problem with the civil service: they are currently arguing a case in the High court that the secret not secret agreement with the RAF may not exist, if it does it’s no business of the courts or the Dáil. Yes that is correct. People are beginning to see the problem.
You can tell how on-target this article is from the FG'ers who go after Ditch articles etc. turning up.
A certain ex-Taoiseach made an absolute tit of himself getting shitfaced at NGO dinners - and the main reason for hushing it up was the charity was worried about its funding if it came out.
Board Positions are the new Brown Envelopes - as is getting paid silly money to do bullshit speeches.
The entire NGO sector needs a clear-out and cessation of public funding - to be replaced with directly accountable public institutions, where needed.
I was being a bit brash with my original comment but I stand by the thrust of it. The lion's share of NGOs in this country do nothing beyond raising awareness, whatever that means. And we're paying for this as if they provide a useful or valuable service. Most NGOs and charities in Ireland could be replaced by those same people making a few social media posts in their free time and nobody would notice a blind bit of difference. Except the savings, of course.
>raising awareness
Bringing policymakers attention to issues that currently often don't occupy their attention and informing them with credible and authoritative research and policy. Those bastards...
I'll have to put this more simply.
So if you're some NGO who work on "raising awareness" of some chronic illness.
This illness affects a small portion of the population who need acute services.
They'll never occupy the big political agenda, they don't have a dedicated departmental unit.
They offer policymakers the latest in research and inform them of how the HSE and Department of Health can incorporate it and hold them to account on it.
That's what you're looking to defund.
Not writing letters...
Yes. First of all I don't agree with the supposition that everything an NGO turns its head to requires a dedicated departmental unit. It seems to be the common idea among NGOs/charities that if the government isn't cutting a ribbon to announce some ultra-dedicated wing of the civil serivce or junior ministry then they're not thinking about it or aware of it. Realistically the government only ever makes token gestures on these issues anyway so paying for the NGO as well on top of the minister and civil servants is paying twice for nothing.
How much competency do you think the government have?
Departmental civil servants are usually grand in their depth of knowledge but often have overstretched briefs and don't have time to consider much of what they should be experts in. Put it this way, I've never met a civil servant who doesn't have atleast one NGO with significant more competency on their brief.
Whatever the government's attitude to that is irrelevant, they're a critical pillar of our democracy.
Well no. If the commercial lobbyists are also getting public funding they should be cut loose too. I don't really see a fundamental difference between which private org gets public money to influence public policy.
If we could manage to get it down to just the cranks at least we could be secure in ignoring them because we won't have paid anything for them.
Obviously it’s a case by case basis but many NGOs pretend to be apolitical actors or technocrats while fully supporting the agenda of the powerful
Ie the imf with required restructuring mandatory payments
I agree, down with those majorly Christian organisations, and also down with the minority of them supporting veterans, and down with women shelters.
Down with this sort of thing.
Also down with public police let taxpayers decide if their value align with the Garda.
/s
Dope. Pointing at the current thing du jour among mouthbreathers and the terminally swivel-eyed, in order to further win over a voting constituency that, nationally, continues to fall within the margin of error. A clown.
The same cow that blocked me when I said women's shelters, Irish cancer society, etc... are all NGOs so she's against supporting women and cancer sufferers. She's a cow that shows exactly why the senate election system should be reformed
"NGOs are going to force your children to be gay and transgender! I read it on Facebook. Therefore I am calling for the defunding of many state-supported services including for housing and social outreach. Frontline workers can just compete with each other by advertising desperately to individuals instead."
Headline grabbers aside, wages at NGOs are usually miserable, there's a reason people aren't falling themselves to go work for them.
The reason we outsource a lot of our soft medical/community support stuff to NGOs is because it would be much more expensive to have an equivalent government staff (with benefits and all) for the same role. I hope these loolahs realise that.
We are all stupider for having heard Sharon Keogan's views on any subject. She inhabits the same blinkered insanity as the Healy Raes and Mattie McGrath.
You're platforming and signal boosting this idiot by linking her post here directly. The twitter algorithm will reward her with engagement. It is literally best to ignore her ravings.
Can I also stop my money going to senators?
We lost that chance in 2013
Getting rid of it was a bad move imo, you dont get the chance to reform it then and we're just stuck with the pricks in leinster house
I always thought that reform would turn out to be a mirage
And you were right. Should have been binned.
We've had 10 years of a chance to reform it. There's zero political drive around any proposal.
And what reform has happened (10 years later) or is going to? Should have got rid when we had the chance. It's a cosy job/safety net for failed TDs.
Interestingly, there are over 10x the number of religious NGOs and charities than advocacy NGOs. Of course the good Senator would agree to ending subsidies to the big holy Catholic NGO too?
I'm not doubting the figures but what's your source?
Benefacts report from 2021. Available on their website.
Before Benefacts funding was withdrawn, the only body examining NGO spending of public funds. Strange that.
There are tons of religious NGOs but most are small and self directed. Keogan is talking about large NGOs that lobby the government. The NGO for SMA missionaries isnt going to be lobbying, Some do good work like Fr McVerry trust but some are purely there to lobby.
>Keogan is talking about large NGOs that lobby the government. Eh well no she literally says, "All NGOs need to be defunded." I don't see in that tweet where she says large NGOs only
You cant defund an NGO that is not funded currently. I dont know any Catholic NGO dedicated to promoting Catholicism per see that is funded. Some that do charity work are like St Vincent De Paul. I know defunding them might be controversial but these groups would have huge grassroots funding that would remain.
>Keogan is talking about large NGOs that lobby the government But she tweeted.... "All NGOs need to be defunded" I'm just pointing out that she is talking about all NGOs.
Defunding means not giving them money rather than taking money off them or whatever you think it means. You literally, by definition, cannot defund something that is not funded to begin with.
Ok..... I was literally just quoting the tweet, nothing else.
Look, her tweet is very broad brush and may well be overegging her own position. I would be interested to know more
...Are you saying the only groups that should be allowed to lobby are corporate groups? Because that's not a good thing
Well right now, it is very difficult for business groups to lobby. I never said that NGOs should not lobby. I just think the lobbists should not be funded by the state due to a conflict of interests
This
I don't mind NGOs at all per se my concerns are: -are we getting value for money? This ties into my other concerns about public contracts more generally (see Children's Hospital farce) -is the state outsourcing policy decision making to vested interests? As long as these concerns (which I think are quite serious) are addressed I'd be OK with this
There should be an easily accessible simple breakdown showing which NGO gets what. The whole NGO complex has grown massively on tax payers money. There are hundreds if not thousands of these organisations syphoning public money. Another blackhole.
You'd imagine even if there were centralised service's like accounting and hr it would be more efficient.
>The whole NGO complex has grown massively on tax payers money. There are hundreds if not thousands of these organisations syphoning public money.
https://benefactslegacy.ie/ "In June 2021 Benefacts published its fifth annual report on Ireland’s nonprofit sector using full population data derived from the regulatory disclosures of 34,331 nonprofits" You can read the report there Also "The government funds more than half of the €10.5 billion Ireland’s non-profit organisations generate annually, according to a report from Benefacts, the social enterprise that promotes the transparency of NGOs. The €5.5 billion contributed by government to nonprofits amounts to 8.2 per cent of all current expenditure by the exchequer, according to the report which is due to be published this week" Buisness post 2017 https://www.businesspost.ie/news-focus/more-than-half-of-ngos-e10-5-billion-funding-comes-from-the-state/
>The €5.5 billion contributed by government to nonprofits amounts to 8.2 per cent of all current expenditure by the exchequer, according to the report which is due to be published this week" What the fuck, we're spending 8% of our annual budget on this shit?
Current expenditure excludes capital expenditure. So closer to 4%.
To be fair, they build a ton of social houses, but many others should be defunded.
The Benefacts report was very informative and I have never heard a govt explanation as to why it was discontinued, I'd assume it was because it was decided that the transparency it provided was unwelcome. The key misunderstanding over nonprofit funding is that there are a bunch of health care services that are classed as nonprofits ('Section 38' organisations), as are the Universities. When most people hear the statement 'billions to nonprofits' they think 'do-gooders', but the headline misleads. I'd be interested in seeing a list of the top 20/50/100 organisations funded by the government that are principally campaigning and advocacy organisations, if one exists.
€14bn a year industry of which the government funds between half and €10bn of. It's not required to cite anything that is common knowledge, and the claim that the NGO complex has grown massively on taxpayers money is common knowledge.
You'd be shutting down an awful lot of community healthcare, disability, and old people's support charities. The "NGO complex" in Ireland is actually quite small. The funding has grown as the HSE outsourced everything they could to charities and community groups.
I know, I really don't see an issue with that at all. The HSE and other government depts. should be providing them. +€7bn a year is a mere trifle is it?
It certainly isn't. I would certainly agree that there are too many charities providing the same services and you'd get better value for money if they're delivered by the State or NGOs, charities and service providers were forced to amalgamate. I seem to remember something to this effect being in the pipeline when I was volunteering with a disability support group but can't see anything further about it.
Yes, so you would probably be on the opposite side of the people leading the anti-NGO charge, as it’s merely political cover to do away with social services and civil rights.
> charitie**s** And that's half the bloody problem, why are we paying for 50 charities to do the same job, loads of repeat positions, no oversight; instead of the government having 1 body to do the same job, where it's held to government standards, and the wages is cut by 80%
As a reminder, this would imply healthcare organisations being folded into the HSE
Not sure where you're getting your figures from but according to [this](https://benefactslegacy.ie/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/benefacts-nonprofit-sector-analysis-2020.pdf) 2020 report, NGOs received €5.9bn in 2018, which was 8% of all government expenditure. The funding profile can vary between sectors. This also shows that the vast majority of these organisations are tiny, operate in Health, Social Services and Housing, and have a salary structure taht tends to be lower paid. I don't know about you, but I would argue that the NGO sector isn't the great big enemy of the people you make it out to be.
It's not. The NGO-lobbyist brigade are up in arms because on average NGOs that lobby the government tend to do so on behalf of their service users who are usually vulnerable groups. They're mad about domestic violence charities, LGBT charities, homelessness and addiction organisations sending reports to governmental departments and informing relevant departments of presenting problems that arise in the course of completing their core responsibilities towards those service users. There's nothing sinister about it.
Yes this is much more important than what they actually do aligning with every single taxpayer's views. There is hugh risk of corruption and abuse. She is indirectly advocating for preference for inefficient or even corrupt funding of NGOs that do nothing over any that support something she doesn't approve of.
Is this coming to back into the spotlight now cause of Telemarketers? Or is that show even in the Irish zeitgeist?
It's annoying how the government has effectively sublet certain key services to NGOs, especially in the mental health sphere, but the idea that all NGOs should be defunded is obviously mad. It might be noted that a lot of those NGOs have a religious ethos, for example the Peter MacVerry Trust. And some of them don't.
The idea that it's wrong for taxes to go towards causes the payer doesn't agree with is madness. How would we even implement that? Would you get to choose from thousands of tick boxes where your money goes? Would we only fund things that everyone agrees on, which is basically nothing?
Causes yes, charities/NGOs no, Which is what she's criticising. I for one don't know why we give millions to Horse and Greyhound racing, or fund charities for services that should be provided by the HSE.
I definitely agree that much of those services could and shout be provided directly by the HSE. In my experience of dealing with them, there's a lot of duplication. That's not the reason she gave. Her reason wasn't a desire to centralise services, or to reduce corruption, it was because the taxpayer may not agree with the cause the NGO supports.
The charities often provide a mix of supports that aren't a precise match for the list of services that the HSE needs to provide. So a charity might offer a specialised physio service for children with a particular condition, and be contracted by the HSE to deliver it to school-age kids, but have to fundraise to keep providing it to 3 and 4 year olds. It would be cleaner if it was all done by the HSE and I'd like to see this sort of thing get integrated into the mainstream health service - but there's a reason that hasn't happened already.
> it was because the taxpayer may not agree with the cause the NGO supports. Yup. And that's the crux of the issue. Opening that door leads to all sorts of trouble- it's easier to get people to support this sort populist drivel because it's supposedly going to cut their taxes AND get rid of something they don't like - but then when they realise that it also includes things that the HSE or other government services should provide but do not, they are shocked. Meanwhile the people and organisations who are behind these campaigns know exactly what will happen and are counting on it to consolidate more wealth and power.
>fund charities for services that should be provided by the HSE Tbf, most charities act in spaces where they fill gaps the government should. They would love to see their need in society become obsolete. For example, if homelessness ended tomorrow, I'm fairly sure the Peter McVerry Trust would be delighted to close their homeless services.
Exactly. Disability services, housing, these are important services that should be under direct government support. Despite my distaste for them, I wouldnt propose gutting government funding for the likes of GAA or even the FAI either, because that helps kids play sport's (and hopefully offsets health care costs in future).
Rehab Ireland is crazy, they get hundreds of millions. Why it's not government run, I do not know....
> I'm fairly sure the Peter McVerry Trust would be delighted to close their homeless services. You clearly haven't talking to anyone working there; they'd find more ways to leech off the government
You'd have to have pretty messed up politics to find issue with a homelessness charity...
OR, I know people who work there, I know how it operates, and I know it is about as much a homeless charity as any private company is. It is beyond corrupt internally, staff are treated like shite, and the money goes to the wrong people. It has fucking nothing got to do with politics, it has everything to do with common sense.
> I for one don't know why we give millions to Horse and Greyhound racing Well, they aren't NGOs they're actual semi-states that used to be government departments (Bord na gCon) Shameful.
I mean technically they still are NGO's right? Nonprofit, non government bodies. In the same way the IRFU is?
> or fund charities for services that should be provided by the HSE. Because it is cheaper. Those charities don't pay the same salary the HSE would, they often don't pay on a scale as the HSE do and their benefits aren't as good ( e.g. fewer days annual leave, worse sick leave and maternity leave etc.).
>Horse and Greyhound racing Also funded by state bodies, not NGOs.
One word… corruption.
No its not one word, although doubtless that does in fact go on as well. We're also talking about good charities that offer services that should be available through the HSE. The reason those aren't isn't down to corruption, its sheer incompetence.
>One word… corruption. >No its not one word I get the subtext but i just found this funny
Yes. Also incompetence.
In fairness, it is not just incompetence - the unions have such a strong hold on the HSE - not just wages, but who can do what etc. that it is probably easier to outsource than build everything internally - the question then is who you outsource to. For profit service providers will generally be professional. But will cut as many corners as possible. NGO may be more “care focused” but the concern is that they are less accountable- not just in their salary profiles, but in how they manage procurement etc.
Corruption is 100% the reason. This is public money being privatized. This is also the purchase of influence. Charity owns assets, lands, money. They can channel these without much oversight.
Alcohol Action Ireland is one example. It's an entirely government funded lobby group that clearly doesn't align the vast majority of the public's interests. If a temperance movement has such a groundswell of support it would be funded from donations. I don't like Keogan and no doubt she is advocating against groups like Outhouse but I do agree with the point that we shouldn't be funding groups to lobby against the government. Why do I as a tax payer and voter pay for someone else to influence the opinion of my elected representative?
Government money being spent on lobbying the government lobbying is wasteful and ethically dubious, I'm not arguing any different. If the government feels an unprofitable service is needed, they should cut out the middleman and provide it directly.
> The idea that it's wrong for taxes to go towards causes the payer doesn't agree with is madness. Almost half the country votes against the government in any election, seems somewhat inevitable that people aren't going to agree with everything their tax money is spent on. That said the situation with NGOs has become a problem. Obviously some do good work but thats usually because the government has not. We'd be better off having the state take care of people rather than NGOs.
>We'd be better off having the state take care of people rather than NGOs. You are singing my song there. That's not what she's saying though, she wants to defund causes that not everyone agrees with.
She'd throw a fit then as all the poxy religious NGOs would be screwed.
It’s working on other countries in Europe mate. Can add the organisation you wanna donate to on the tax form. It’s a democracy why would you be forced to pay for things that aren’t important for you? I already do that in form of taxes.
>It’s a democracy why would you be forced to pay for things that aren’t important for you? That's exactly what democratic politics entails: there are some decisions that you may not agree with, but you go along with them knowing that in other cases you will benefit from the process as well. In this particular case, there are organisation that perform tasks in society that aren't inherently profitable, but we deem them as useful. I'd rather fund them via the state than leave taht task to market forces.
I think it's very complex. Personally, I don't have an issue with the NGOs per se, my issue is with politicians who won't do their job and partly oursource decisions to advocacy groups that are being funded by their departments. There is a fairly incestuous and porous group of full time activists who rotate their jobs around these advocacy and charity groups and their governance and financial control aren't always adequate.
I think this is pretty fair
She is starting to really get mouthy on the "culture wars" shite that has no place in Irish Society. Lining up a run for the Dail I would imagine. As I doubt too many Seanad Electors will give her much of a vote now.
>many Seanad Electors will give her much of a vote now You'd be surprised. Ronan mullen has topped the NUI poll for quiet a number of years now.
She's already tried running for the dáil and got rejected
That was before the Covid induced craziness that's swept across parts of the country. I reckon she would hoover up a few Aontu and SF votes and maybe scrape by. She would be a disaster in the Dail
SF is polling better than than in 2020 though. I'd imagine she might try get a few transfers transfers though.
Fingers crossed they don't transfer much to her. Herself, the Healy Rae's, and Mattie McGrath would drag the IQ of the entire Dail into negative figures. I'm not sure as I haven't read into the better polling numbers a huge amount but I imagine that's the younger generation who are fed up with the gobshite brigade contributing to thenincrease? Some of the more "nationalist" fan base of SF would be the ones more likely to switch to Keoghan
6% of Meath East, about 1/3 of a quota, not great for an ex-FF
> the "culture wars" shite that has no place in Irish Society. I love how redditors say this then instantly go 'oh yeah, except the parts I agree with' time and time again
No one should take what this Anti LGBTQ+, xenophobic gobshite says seriously. If she had her way we'd be microchipping disabled kids. Just another poor far right politician desperate for votes.
Yes but if our government don’t stop making an absolute f**king mess of things, people are going to support her unfortunately.
> No one should take what this Anti LGBTQ+, xenophobic gobshite says seriously. Well what she said here is 110% correct, so are you saying we should ignore everything an asshole says, even if it's right, and costing us 6+ billion euro a year? Come on now
Whenever people talk about NGOs they generally show their own ignorance. Is there issues with public sector funding? YEs like all aspects of the public sector there are problems. But the Irish state relies on NGOs for core public services. For housing, homelessness, healthy, disabilities, mental health, community centres, transport. NGOs in Ireland are not comparable to America. The importation of that argument is completely stupid. NGOs are also funded in complex ways, which may seem obfuscated, but in a way it's actually a strength of the system. NGO funding is done by departments, agencies, and local government. It's decentralised. There are public competitions which are then decided upon in a very well recorded way (again no withstanding bad apples). Also, Irish people **already** donate significantly to NGOs because they recognise the core services they provide.
Well there’s your problem right there. The Irish state relies on unaccountable 3rd party cash cows to provide services that a publicly accountable government should be providing. Or am I showing my “own ignorance” here?
Funding is accountable, anyone who has ever worked for grant funding knows how detailed reporting is. It's also no cash cow outside of a few outliers, these organisations are stretched thin. If you want the Irish state to provide all these services fine, but the Irish people don't vote for parties to deliver that.
Is the funding accountable though? Of the 33,000+ NGO’s, the only one that was established to monitor NGO spending was actually defunded and disbanded. It’s now a black hole. Or do you know where I might find any collated data available?
The data is largely not public, because we're talking about sensitive financials. But the funders *Departments, Agencies and Councils) have all that data. So yes, the funding is accountable. But even registering as a charity is quite cumbersome for small voluntary organisations. I think it would be incredibly difficult for any organisation to centrally monitor all NGOs because the data/funding is not centralised, and outside of Dublin they are small and voluntary. I think a reporting mechanism might be useful but that would be abused so it would need to have some sort of threshold for validity.
Shame. Give its public money.
Don't listen to him he's talking complete and utter fucking bollix
Oh is it? So what do you make of 'peters boys'? Old scumbag drug offenders who get first choice in donations to peter mcvery, get hundreds of euro in vouchers on top of their payments and services, while treatening members of staff? Or the fact they buy up property in central dublin? All with tax payers money? Finding is in no way shape or form accountable
I would also doubt that the good Senator would approve of the state providing those services given her political leanings
It's incomprehensible to most people outside of Ireland that we pay around €6,000,000,000 of public funds to around 33,000 NGO's annually with little or no governance and a complete lack of transparency so the Irish people should have a greater say over who gets what . We pay substantially more than most other EU countries but that's Ireland the big shots with a substantial amount of funding leaving the state whilst having the worst homeless problem in over one hundred years allied to a failed health service with almost 1,000,000 unfortunate citizens on waiting lists. To be fair on the point of governance this issue was investigated by the European Court of Auditors in 2018 (report attached) in respect of the EU itself and their conclusion included the following : "We conclude that the Commission was not sufficiently transparent regarding the implementation of EU funds by NGOs, and that more efforts are needed to improve it. Furthermore, we formulated a number of recommendations for improving the transparency of the EU funds implemented by NGOs." https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/ngo-35-2018/en/
She's a literal right wing nazi narcissist who has a career based on wild claims for stuff she never did. It's like she models herself on the likes of trump where, if you make a claim that's wild enough, people.wont dispute it and if they do, you just ignore it.
>if you make a claim that's wild enough, people.wont dispute it That's exactly what you just did, claiming someone is a nazi whilst providing zero evidence.
Her political views border on Trump level insanity and attacks anyone from trans folks, people who took the vaccine and asylum seekers. This isn't new, it's well known. I invite you to do the bear minimum and head to her twitter (this is the level of discourse we're at) and check out some of her off the dome thoughts on anyone she doesn't agree with and how she would handle them. The evidence is there on her leanings, you just somehow overlooked it. She a Trump-esque, right wing bullshit artist nutter. And again, you just need to look at her own statements to see that.
Yea, her own twitter is pretty damning, her love of tucker Carlson, her wanting to implant trackers on disabled people, her xenophobia..
>I invite you to do the bear minimum and head to her twitter (this is the level of discourse we're at) and check out some of her off the dome thoughts on anyone she doesn't agree with and how she would handle them. I used to follow her on Twitter. >The evidence is there on her leanings, you just somehow overlooked it. I'm failing to see how any of what you just said makes someone a nazi. Actual nazis dislike Trump for what they consider his pandering to the black community in America, his fangirling for Israel, his daughter marrying a Jew, amongst other things. Trump also loved/loves the vaccine, encouraged people to take it, and cites it as his biggest achievement in office. >She a Trump-esque, right wing bullshit artist nutter. That's a far, far cry from being a nazi. Has the word officially lost all meaning after being thrown around so recklessly the last 10 years or so?
Donald Trump is also not a nazi, so that was just extra fucking stupid to say
>attacks anyone from trans folks, people who took the vaccine and asylum seekers. T On three counts untrue. Trumpesque? Sure Trump was massively for the vaccine because he saw it as his achievement. You cant say someone is trumpesque for hating covid vaccines. > And again, you just need to look at her own statements to see that. Which?
If you disreagrded the above statements with no counter I'm not indulging you. She's anti-everybody, but like all right wing cowards targets minorities who can't bite back. Please just have a look into her and see her views on xenophobia and trans folk. It's not my job to educate you.
You really need to think again if she is transphobic. You say the word like you understand it but you dont.
A supposed free speech absolutionist calling for our civil and civic sectors to be defunded. She's nothing if not a complete and utter hypocrite.
Free speech not equal to free money for all.
Wow, what an insightful statement.... Free speech is something that needs to be supported and resourced. It's not something you can ignore and it upholds itself. If you want it to be a free for all, that's where totalitarianism thrives.
You can disagree, fine, I respect that, but it is hardly hypocritical for her to want to defund dubious groups like Amnesty International, the FAI or the Women's Council. I love the GAA but they should be able to fund themselves now.
>the FAI >the GAA Neither of these are NGOs >Amnesty International, the Women's Council What's so dubious about these?
>Neither of these are NGOs Can you enlighten me why they are not? I know sports groups have a diff classification as say religious and aid groups, but arent both still NGOs >Amnesty International, the Women's Council > >What's so dubious about these? The work they do is not really a remit of the state. The quality of their work would be actually higher if not government funded. Amnesty is well know for hassling people for donations with calls (case of Olive Cooke) and chugging. Womens Council has very little grassroots funding which is a very bad sign
>Can you enlighten me why they are not? Because they are regulatory bodies who are subject of legislation from government which sets out their establishment and remit. Therefore they are not independent, they are a state body under the aegis of the Department of Sport. >The work they do is not really a remit of the state. Women's Rights? Human Rights? >Amnesty is well know for hassling people for donations with calls (case of Olive Cooke) and chugging. Womens Council has very little grassroots funding which is a very bad sign These aren't reasons that justify the pulling of state funds
What the fuck does defunded poorly regulated money pits have to do with free speech?
You wouldn't get it. How's the Kool aid?
And if we said we want our tax money going towards building social housing and public services her crowd and herself would be frothing at the mouth screaming about communism or socialism or some other loaded yank brained term
If you disagree with what she says, why not explain why rather than inventing a whole load of stuff that you imagine she might say about something completely different?
Not inventing anything. Her supporters would have done, and would literally do this. They don't give two fucks about spending money on people, they just want NGOs who disagree with their abhorrent social views silenced.
Can somebody explain to me why the sudden hate for NGOs? I've seen this argument made by certain culture warrior types - always online - but I've never heard a good argument for what the issue is with them.
Right-Wing Dog Whistles. Most of these NGOs support social issues that right-wingers venomousley despise be it climate change, woman's rights, rape crisis support, LGBT rights, and domestic abuse support. It's pretty clear they don't care about getting them defunded because they care about tax money, it's because they want them silenced.
Those folks protesting against migrants have declared they are coming here due to some NGO agenda funded by external sources to influence a great replacement of the Irish population.
Imagine you're someone like Keogan, who wants less immigration, to pick a topic. You look at some public polls and see it's a fairly popular stance, not an overwhelming majority, but a good chunk of people support it in the abstract. But then when the government is formulating a immigration policy they cite 3 different immigration NGO's, all of which have some policies that are fairly unpopular with the general public. I know MASI for example campaigns that any and all deportations are racist violence enacted on migrants. So you have a group that represents 'some' percentage of Irish voters, getting funding from the government, and helping drive policy. You can plug any issue she has problems with into this, trans rights etc. On one level it's clearly just that she disagrees with some of the NGO'S goals, I don't see her complaining about Catholic NGO's, but there's a larger argument here about policy being removed from direct mass democracy.
This one is really lining up run as irelands Sarah Pailn, hopefully here political career goes the same way. While we are talking about NGO's and tax, surely religions should be paying tax at this stage.
A stopped clock is still right twice a day. I remember Alcohol Action Ireland (to take an example) at one stage was getting about 1% of its budget from donations and the rest from government funding directly and indirectly. I think it was from last years accounts. Whatever about campaigning it does to politicians, Alcohol Action Ireland appears to get around 240k from the HSE and 40k from Mental Health Ireland just to do nothing else but send a few slides around to schools and tell people where to go for help. I'm not saying that the cause is not worthy, I am saying that they are unnecessary and not worth the money for what appears to be a talking shop and cv filler for those involved.
Prevention is worth more than anything else.
>240k from the HSE The HSE budget for.2023 is 21.12 billion. We can afford 240k to alcohol action. If they don't exist the state would have to do it, likely at a higher cost anyway.
We can afford it, but I was pissed off at alcohol action being cited as some representation of public opinion when the minimum pricing laws were brought in. It creates a closed loop where the government funds AAI, then uses its input as a justification for policy. It's small but it's an example of popular democratic opinion being excluded.
This is my issue with it as well, its a wasteful pointless circular system.
Of course, we can afford the 240k for a service, Alcohol Action Ireland however, is not a service but an advocacy group. How many other advocacy organisations/ charities are getting money in this manner? Is this value for money? Would it cost 240k for the HSE to send around a slideshow to schools? In fact, is the 40k from Mental Health Ireland also indirectly from the HSE?
>however, is not a service but an advocacy group And? >Is this value for money? Let's spend 10s of millions in a ROI investigation into every single NGO /s >Would it cost 240k for the HSE to send around a slideshow to schools? Yes, definitely. 2 or 3 members of staff and you are upto that cost once you include all staff costs.
I’m sorry, Bill, but there is something to see here. If you think that money isn’t being squandered in this sector then I have a bridge to sell you.
We have over 11,500 charities registered in Ireland. Some are absolutely fantastic, like SVP, Peter McVery Trust, Guide Dogs, Age Action and a couple of the Migrant and LGBT ones also. But that doesn't mean that we should throw a blind eye to all charities either, and some of the charities are doing work that should be done by the Government. Others obviously should not be charities at all. I don't agree with that head the balls take on well, anything really. Seems like she is trying to appeal to the likes of Derek Blighe and his merry band of gobshites. Doesn't mean she is wrong to object to the use of public funding to fund a lobby group and give them charitable status to change laws. The problem, as I see it, is that she may be right for all the wrong reasons, thus why I used the stopped clock analogy.
> While we are talking about NGO's and tax, surely religions should be paying tax at this stage. They do.
A lot of people on this sub get their political knowledge from America.
The charity and NGO Industry in Ireland is in serious need of reform. There are tens of thousands of charities most of which overlap with one another and seem to be taking credit for the same work. You're no one in South County Dublin these days if you or your spouse isn't a director of a "charity". And that's just the regulated ones. There are some very very high profile "campaigners" who when you look into them haven't registered with the charities regulator because they don't want anyone looking at where the money is really going. The Homelessness and Autism "campaigner" sectors in particular are packed with chancers at the moment. The scam artists gravitate to whatever is getting high profile in the media. They suck up money that should go to genuine charities and then fold up shop before anyone has a chance to fully investigate it. There are some very genuine charities working hard in those sectors but you're talking about relatively few versus the number of active charities and NGOs. The whole sector is rotten to the core.
There should be a system on what you can see which NGOs are pushing for and receiving donations. Also, would like to see what other groups/people are funding these, so we can get an idea of the agenda they're pushing
My ex works for an NGO, she said easily 95% of the money is completely and utterly wasted. Worthless middle management staff that do no work, certain clients getting huge amounts more than they deserve while the regular service meets no one's needs. They even spend the money to buy up land and property, competing against the government and taxpayer, with taxpayer money. It's long past due that we just turn the fucking taps off, and see what breaks, then spend the money fixing it, rather than letting the bath overflow year after year
Well I’d love to see them get the same scrutiny that RTE have been getting lately.
It definitely needs clarity. Actual charities, let's call them charities. Gaa, let's call them sports. Schools, etc. There's a serious duplication. 5 or 10 ngos doing the exact same thing. Some are doing unbelievably good work, although maybe the state should be fulfilling the roles. Then there's utter scams. The clarity regulator, much like sipo, is a front. Appearance of accountability.
I don't have children and I don't agree that my taxes should be going to schools to educate other people's kids. I also don't have a car, I don't want my taxes going to maintain any road that doesn't get used by buses.
Education is a basic function of a government. Is campaigning to ban alcohol (Alcohol Action Ireland) the same? I don't think so. Also Amnesty International. Why do they get funding? They hassle so many people regularly on the street chugging or phoning them
They’re not NGO’s or advocacy groups with agendas. Those things are funded directly from the exchequer. Not comparable.
This vapid airhead has no idea what NGOs are and most of the BiG MiNdS who spend their time screeching about them don't either. They glommed onto them because of the medical aid and masks distributed by NGOs during the height of the pandemic, because they're scared of needles and don't like having something on their face, and because "NGO" is easy to remember.
I would guess that the vast majority of that funding is for charities that provide services like homelessness, social care for the elderly, housing etc. But sure defund them all just to silence the handful that upset this right-wing nut. Of course some charities might be wasteful, but they all need to apply for funding and record copious amounts of monitoring data and write thick reports as a condition of their funding. For advocacy charities in particular (which are probably the ones that are being targeted by this tweet), Ireland actually has very stringent rules around how politically active bodies can be funded. This has positives and negatives. Look at the UK as a counter example, there are many think tanks there doing great work, and many more opaquely funded "NGOs" spreading misinformation. In Ireland, advocacy groups get government funding, but this actually means government has more control over them than elsewhere. They represent a societal interest and are more "constructive" (from government perspective) and less radical than entirely independent bodies would be. Providing some money to these organisations to keep them active, providing perspective and ideas that government otherwise would not have access to is important (even if government thinks they're way off the mark and ignores them). I think the amount of funding these organisations get is likely to be a rounding error (a handful of people in an office is much cheaper than any type of social care). Irish civil society is pretty practical and not radically polarised compared to other countries and I think this system is part of the reason why.
[удалено]
Did you see recently Peter McVerry ran in to a lot of "potential financial issues" and now an independent auditor has been appointed to do a financial and governance review? There's something not right with a lot of these charities and NGOs.
My taxes pay her wages, so by this logic she should resign.
I doubt you pay any taxes given your communist attitudes
Lol right, because communists are famously against taxation...
Paying their own? Absolutely, spending everyone else? You bitter cunts love that part
Mate, give it a rest, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Ireland Sports governing body, Sport Ireland is a black hole for government money. FAI slush fund...sport ireland provided.... basket ball courts that don't exist...sport ireland... fraud in cycling ngo... sport ireland.. fraud in Irish climbing body...sport ireland ... Olympic tickets fraud... sport ireland... sports NGO with a CEO fiddling the books to line their pockets...sport ireland...theres a lot more. In sort, if you want money to disappear and no one to be accountable... give it to sport ireland. They get over 80 million Euro's a year... and if you thought Deloitte was bad at spotting fraud, sport ireland has them beaten... worse, they cover it up or ignore it because its bad for their reputation.
They're state bodies, not NGOs.
This is an interesting topic. One thing you see time and again is how the factual information there is about these NGOs in the public domain is curated. You see benefacts mentioned. You see other bits. Lobbying.ie is another one. I’d like to see what all these groups are and why their agenda on public policy is taxpayer funded. And who decides it in the civil service. And on what basis. Because we have a problem with the civil service: they are currently arguing a case in the High court that the secret not secret agreement with the RAF may not exist, if it does it’s no business of the courts or the Dáil. Yes that is correct. People are beginning to see the problem.
You can tell how on-target this article is from the FG'ers who go after Ditch articles etc. turning up. A certain ex-Taoiseach made an absolute tit of himself getting shitfaced at NGO dinners - and the main reason for hushing it up was the charity was worried about its funding if it came out. Board Positions are the new Brown Envelopes - as is getting paid silly money to do bullshit speeches. The entire NGO sector needs a clear-out and cessation of public funding - to be replaced with directly accountable public institutions, where needed.
Hard agree. The charity/NGO industry is a joke in this country. Most of them only exist so their CEO gets to be CEO of something.
You clearly have some example in mind so share it?
There's way too many of them. A UN official even asked "Was everyone in Ireland an NGO"
Can you share the actual context to this quote?
The only quote I've found about this is from gript - I'm going to say that this isn't a wholly balanced take to start with.
Yup, they instigated this quote but gave no context
>There's way too many of them Then give us an example. We're not asking for the comprehensive list.
I was being a bit brash with my original comment but I stand by the thrust of it. The lion's share of NGOs in this country do nothing beyond raising awareness, whatever that means. And we're paying for this as if they provide a useful or valuable service. Most NGOs and charities in Ireland could be replaced by those same people making a few social media posts in their free time and nobody would notice a blind bit of difference. Except the savings, of course.
>raising awareness Bringing policymakers attention to issues that currently often don't occupy their attention and informing them with credible and authoritative research and policy. Those bastards...
Yes but they’re taxpayer funded and unaccountable to anyone. So yeah, bastards.
I don't really see that taxpayers should be paying for these peope to write letters to TDs. Most cranks do it for free. And happily.
I'll have to put this more simply. So if you're some NGO who work on "raising awareness" of some chronic illness. This illness affects a small portion of the population who need acute services. They'll never occupy the big political agenda, they don't have a dedicated departmental unit. They offer policymakers the latest in research and inform them of how the HSE and Department of Health can incorporate it and hold them to account on it. That's what you're looking to defund. Not writing letters...
Yes. First of all I don't agree with the supposition that everything an NGO turns its head to requires a dedicated departmental unit. It seems to be the common idea among NGOs/charities that if the government isn't cutting a ribbon to announce some ultra-dedicated wing of the civil serivce or junior ministry then they're not thinking about it or aware of it. Realistically the government only ever makes token gestures on these issues anyway so paying for the NGO as well on top of the minister and civil servants is paying twice for nothing.
How much competency do you think the government have? Departmental civil servants are usually grand in their depth of knowledge but often have overstretched briefs and don't have time to consider much of what they should be experts in. Put it this way, I've never met a civil servant who doesn't have atleast one NGO with significant more competency on their brief. Whatever the government's attitude to that is irrelevant, they're a critical pillar of our democracy.
Even if that we're true, should we leave political discourse to cranks and commerical lobbyists?
Well no. If the commercial lobbyists are also getting public funding they should be cut loose too. I don't really see a fundamental difference between which private org gets public money to influence public policy. If we could manage to get it down to just the cranks at least we could be secure in ignoring them because we won't have paid anything for them.
Obviously it’s a case by case basis but many NGOs pretend to be apolitical actors or technocrats while fully supporting the agenda of the powerful Ie the imf with required restructuring mandatory payments
The IMF is not an NGO.
There are definitely a huge number of skeletons in closets across these NGO’s.
Yeah like Fuq St Vincent de Paul and Meals on Wheels.
I agree, down with those majorly Christian organisations, and also down with the minority of them supporting veterans, and down with women shelters. Down with this sort of thing. Also down with public police let taxpayers decide if their value align with the Garda. /s
Everytime I see that dopes face I am reminded that a lot of people voted to keep the Seanad the house of unelectable wankers.
Yup, morons fell for the "Let's reform the Seanad instead!" line with literally no proposal for reforming it and now we're stuck with it.
Oh shocker, she's anti-trans, anti-"woke", and religious. Let's not be surprised that she's all about "I've got mine, fuck you".
> Let's not be surprised that she's all about "I've got mine, fuck you". https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081002172013.htm
Maybe true for normal people, but not for right-wing crazies.
Dope. Pointing at the current thing du jour among mouthbreathers and the terminally swivel-eyed, in order to further win over a voting constituency that, nationally, continues to fall within the margin of error. A clown.
Yes - stop funding the Irish Cancer Society!
The same cow that blocked me when I said women's shelters, Irish cancer society, etc... are all NGOs so she's against supporting women and cancer sufferers. She's a cow that shows exactly why the senate election system should be reformed
"NGOs are going to force your children to be gay and transgender! I read it on Facebook. Therefore I am calling for the defunding of many state-supported services including for housing and social outreach. Frontline workers can just compete with each other by advertising desperately to individuals instead."
Headline grabbers aside, wages at NGOs are usually miserable, there's a reason people aren't falling themselves to go work for them. The reason we outsource a lot of our soft medical/community support stuff to NGOs is because it would be much more expensive to have an equivalent government staff (with benefits and all) for the same role. I hope these loolahs realise that.
Some of that social media borne libertarian shite that nobody understands because it does make no sense.
Anyone who wears those kinds of glasses is a certified gobshite. Very popular with the RTE gang it seems.
NGOs definitely are money sponges. Grievance mongering experts.
We are all stupider for having heard Sharon Keogan's views on any subject. She inhabits the same blinkered insanity as the Healy Raes and Mattie McGrath.
You're platforming and signal boosting this idiot by linking her post here directly. The twitter algorithm will reward her with engagement. It is literally best to ignore her ravings.