Why is cutting funding to the VCS thought of as an “easy option”?

I’ve been puzzling over something David Cameron has said on a few occasions (including at Prime Minister’s Questions):

When it comes to looking at and trimming your budgets, don’t do the easy thing, which is to cut money to the voluntary bodies and organisations working in our communities.

Why would Cameron think that cutting money to the voluntary and community sector is the “easy thing”? I can think of 6 reasons why he may think that’s the case (it goes without saying I don’t agree with the points below):

1. There is a perception that the work done in the VCS is not as vital as what others do
2. The sector is less well organised than other sectors and so can’t defend itself
3. The arrangements between the sector and local councils / commissioners aren’t as solid as they are with other non-public providers
4. There isn’t generally the same quality of individuals in the VCS as there is elsewhere
5. The sector is more dependent on commissioners than non-VCS providers, meaning it has to bend over backwards to make commissioners happy
6. The attitude of the VCS means they’d be willing to do the same or more for less.

All of these reasons would be wrong, of course. But it’s an interesting thought experiment as to why the Prime Minister thinks what he does.

Advertisement