Cirque du Charity; why non-profits have a tightrope to walk in Westminster
The perpetual political crisis rumbles on, or so we are led to believe.
“Westminster remains a place where power is hoarded, decisions are opaque and the people who take those decisions are not properly held to account.” Not my words, or even those of Lord Grey on the eve of achieving the 1832 Great Reform Act, but those of our Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg in June 2013. It is within this world that charities have to operate and perform a seemingly impossible tightrope act of convincing all stakeholder audiences that they are achieving success.
Despite Nick Clegg’s protestations and John Bercow’s occasional berating of the House with occasional reprimands such as “the public detests this kind of behaviour” (and so it may when PMQs is in full swing), the truth is that the public want charities to be rubbing shoulders with Malcolm Tucker and co in Westminster. According to our Charity Awareness Monitor, nearly half of the public feel that it is worthwhile for charities to lobby the Government and 57% believe that charities should be campaigning to change the law and government policy in their areas of work.
The same cannot be said for lobbying in general. According to a YouGov report this month, 54% believe that lobbyists have too much influence on politicians. So the public decrees that charity lobbying is permitted, but that the same privilege should not be granted to others.
So far so good. First step onto the tightrope accomplished. Now where do journalists and MPs stand? Here is where the wire starts to wobble. Depending on political beliefs, charities are either doing too much—interfering with Government policy in an unrealistic and unhelpful way, thus acting as a political puppet for the Opposition—or they are failing their most vulnerable constituents by working with a Government that is cutting essential services.
In our Charity Media Monitor (CMM), we hear comments such as “[charities are failing to] raise heads above the political parapet” and “those that fail to say out loud what cuts are doing to their clients will suffer in the long run for lack of credibility.” So should you work with the Government and alienate half of your support, or work with the Opposition and risk achieving nothing?
Despite these difficulties, this act is not impossible. In the political arena, charities are not political parties. They are able to, and need to, transcend Punch and Judy politics to represent their supporters and constituents and take a stance on policies in their field, be it positive or critical.
To make a meaningful representation, having the right tactics is essential - time for a triple somersault from the wire, landing on both feet facing the crowd. This means meeting the relevant Minister, MP or Lord and using an evidence-based approach, deploying relevant case studies that highlight where a policy is set to succeed or fail. It does not mean being ‘political’.
No good blog would be complete without a little plug, and here it comes like the 15.47 from Charing Cross. In our Charity Parliamentary Monitor (CPM), MPs tell us they do not like charities being too ‘political’. What does that mean? Controversial? Headline-chasing? We have asked that very question in our next round of CPM and CMM, so if you’re a charity that wants to assess the effect your campaigns are having in Westminster and on the media, why don’t you get in touch?
Tim Harrison
Has Tim juggled the issues well? Or will people fall into the trapeze-ly? Leave us a comment below.
Tim Harrison heads up the professional audiences team at nfpSynergy. You can reach them on cpm@nfpsynergy.net or call on 020 7426 8888