Latest jobs
- Trusts & Statutory Executive
- £28,000
- Direct Marketing Fundraiser
- c£30,000
- Community Fundraiser
- £21,798
- Trusts Executive
- c. £24,000 per annum
- Fundraiser/Business Developer
- Up to £30k
- Training & Development Manager
- Up to £30k
- Head of Services
- Up to £60k
- Office /Development Co-coordinator
- Marketing Manager
- £34,255 -£39,051 pa + benefits
- Database Officer (fundraising team)
- £21000-£25500
Famous names
"Three times as many women could survive if ovarian cancer was diagnosed at the earliest stage"
Gaby Roslin backs the Unzipped project by Target Ovarian Cancer
Third sector should be called 'first sector', Cameron says
By David Ainsworth, Third Sector Online, 3 July 2009
Conservative leader tells local government conference the term implies lack of respect
Conservative leader David Cameron has said that he does not think the term 'third sector' should be used to refer to charities and social enterprises.
Answering a question on community interest companies and social enterprises at the Local Government Association conference yesterday, Cameron said he felt the term suggested a lack of respect for the organisations it described.
In his foreword to the Conservative green paper on the future of the voluntary sector last year, A Stronger Society: Voluntary Action in the 21st Century, Cameron said that he wanted to see charities and social enterprises as "the first sector".
But Peter Kyle, deputy chief executive of chief executive's body Acevo, said such a debate would be a distraction for sector organisations during the recession.
"We don't have the luxury of having a debate like that at this time," he said.
You must log in to comment on articles.
All Comments Make a comment
do goodthings, 3 July 2009, 11:44
It's not just a distraction, it's entirely redundant. Depending who is speaking "Third sector" means "big charities" or "charities that deliver public services" or "charities we're claiming to represent to further our own interests" or "part of civil society" rendering whatever term you use almost entrely pointless.[Report this post]
Mick Drewry, 3 July 2009, 12:46
Whatever the sector is called it is a misnomer as it refers to a collection of sectors brought together for expediency. Before the faith sector caught on that their particular groups were not on a level playing field it was expedient to enjoin the VolCom sector or VCS, which again is a misnomer because the voluntary and community sectors are entirely different animals but each reliant on the other to some degree. The voluntary sector is made up of organisations and agencies that 'employ paid staff' to support volunteers in the community sector. Conversely, the community sector is made up of many community groups run by 'volunteers'. Some are fortunate enough to be able to employ paid workers to deliver projects or services of community benefit, often in a specifically identified georgaphical area or area of interest but they are managed by volunteers; bottom-up. I would argue that the 'voluntary' sector is more dependent upon the community sector than vice versa as without the latter, the former has no purpose. However, the community sector can, and often does, exist without the support of the voluntary sector and its purpose is to engender benefits to those it works for or represents. The expediency of a VolCom sector allows voluntary sector agencies and organisations to use the community sector to cream off funding as and when it becomes available; money that would be far better spent in the communities supporting volunteers to deliver rather than sustaining well paid voluntary sector jobs. A group belonging to any of these sectors can also be a charity, which adds another anomaly to the collective sector concept. Never mind renaming the 'sector', it is time to recognise each sector for what it is and what it does and provide for them all in accordance to the real benefits they provide. I would argue that politicians would be better focussing on how tax payers money provided for communities is best distributed. It would be far better for funding to be channeled from the Treasury straight to the community groups that deliver on the ground, getting rid of the layers of costly administration in between; 'efficiency savings' in local governent terminology.[Report this post]
trevor o'farrell, 3 July 2009, 13:53
Perhaps he is merely forecasting what will happen to public services should he ever be elected. It' would obviously be easier for the Tories to deal with a mainly non unionised sector than Unison etc, while large scale statutory services will be hived off to larger private cartels under 'buy now pay much later schemes such as the infamous PFI schemes. Think Metronet for example.[Report this post]
Reg Chalmers, 7 July 2009, 11:23
Alongside Cameron's line on quangos (which has some justification) this is signaling that the Tories will be expecting the Third Sector (call it what you will) to take over the delivery of services. However, if quangos lack accountability (which they do), so, ultimately, do charities. The Charity Commission (a quango itself) has shown itself reluctant to intervene in any but the most public of cases leaving alot of charities to paddle along as they wish. They may or may not be well intentioned and efficient. The point is that there is no effective oversight of charitable activities other than the good will of trustees.[Report this post]