People like Jim Ratcliffe or James Dyson worth £20 billion plus could do this for 100s of towns/villages while keeping 90% of their fortune.

25

If the state is going to retrench into funding acute services only due to aging and stagnation then reverting to late Victorian municipal philanthropy might be the only way to get nice things for most people...

Replies

  1. Assuming such an approach learns from the third sector, where large donations often come with strings attached (e.g for more cancer nurses in Surrey) that exacerbate inequality. It still needs the invisible hand somewhere.

    0
  2. Unfortunately many "philanthropists" make donations where they are least needed

    Compare the average state school trying to raise £100s in a bake sale with the regular £millions of donations to Eton, Winchester and the like

    To me, this always seems the weirdest kind of "charitable" giving!

    0
  3. In many ways that is the model in the US. The challenge is that you build up a whole fundraising culture which leads to way too much soft influence. But in a nation that doesn't trust the state, it may be the best option.

    0
  4. Philanthropy has to be part of the solution but what I’m learning as I try to do a modest bit of it is that it’s hard to learn how to do it effectively. It’s no doubt easier for those whose families have done it for generations. How about a College of Philanthropy to teach the newbies?

    0
  5. The mid 20th century welfare state was predicated on the assumption of a strong civil society and paternalistic employers in the private sector (these happily regulated by trade unions, so back to civil society).

    0
  6. Violent revolution is another option. Maoist People's War is the only post WW2 doctrine that has succeeded, other than maybe nuclear deterrence ... son ar!

    0