The disillusionment of UKIP supporters could damage the charity sector

Study shows that UKIP supporters are as disillusioned with charities as they are with MPS.

Study shows that UKIP supporters are as disillusioned with charities as they are with MPS

New polling by Ipsos Mori for NPC warns that the mistrust many UKIP supporters feel for ‘the establishment’ is now extending to the charity sector.

Over half of UKIP supporters said that they had no trust in UK charities, adding them to the list of institutions in which they have lower than average trust – MPs, the BBC and the police.

The new data, which is the first of its kind ever published, finds that 53 per cent of UKIP supporters declare low trust in charities, compared with 33 per cent of Conservative voters, 28 per cent of Labour supporters and 24 per cent of Lib Dems.

This compares with 35 per cent of the public as a whole who say they have low trust in charities.

The study also shows that people are much less likely to trust charities if they feel they are political. 40 per cent of people said they would prefer to donate to local charities, but only 15 per cent mostly view charities as ‘local’. 70 per cent of people would prefer to donate to service delivery charities rather than awareness raising ones.

The poll finds that international charities have ‘virtually no support’ from UKIP voters; 1 in 5 of the general public support international charities.

The NPC worry that the findings may have serious implications for the charity sector as it struggles to find support amid increasing scepticism. The government, NPC argues, will have to find new ways of making civil society work in the age of austerity.

NPC’s chief executive Dan Corry said:

“We know that many UKIP supporters are disillusioned with the Westminster establishment and with many public institutions. Our new research suggests that charities are in danger of being lumped in with them, as UKIP supporters are far less trusting in charities compared to supporters of the three established parties.

‘UKIP supporters seem to represent an increasing strand of public opinion, and one that the charity sector cannot ignore. Like it or not, they may have a bigger voice—or even hold the balance of power—after the general election.”

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

33 Responses to “The disillusionment of UKIP supporters could damage the charity sector”

  1. JoeDM

    Many, if not most, of the large mega-charities are run like large multinational corporations with six figure salaries and banker style bonuses for the seniror management, big lavish offices in the centre of London and glossy TV advertising campaigns.

    We see where our money is going and we make an appropriate decision.

    I only now give to small local charities that are focused on real issues and not involved in politics.

  2. Guest

    Keep hating on people being paid decent salaries. It’s not your cash, you don’t give, stop whining.

    And yes, I’m sure you give to your pub fund.

  3. Seymour

    Charities that are into politics, supporting their favourite party, aren’t charities in my book.

    Charities that receive most of their funding via government largesse, anti-smoking lobby for one, aren’t really charities.

    For charities to start regaining trust they need to refuse funding from governments, national and local, not be so obviously biased in favour of political parties and not be total hypocrites and liars (greenpeace and peta for two that are).

    Also, paying your managers hundreds of thousands of dollars/euros/pounds a year implies (well I infer) that their leadership is not focused on the charities aims.

  4. swat

    We need to give the money to the Voluntary Sector and Charities so that the Big Society can finally take off.

  5. madasafish


    A well put summary of my own views.

    When charities are so large, the reason for their funding is to continue their own existence.
    When charities pay megabucks, their managers are not motivated by the cause.
    When charities receive more than 25% (or roughly) of their income from the state, they do the state’s bidding…

    When more than 25% of income goes on administration costs, they are not a charity.

    First job is to do a clean sweep of the Charity Commission Management: they are largely complicit in this debasing of charities…

    ANY hint of political work or support for a political party at home or abroad and charitable status should be withheld – permanently.

  6. Richard Honey

    The Big Society? Wow you’ve got s long memory. I seem to remember the so-called BS never took off in part because the Coalition proceeded to cut funding to the voluntary sector. Pretty much all that remains are food banks funded by the churches and the generosity of shoppers and others, sickened at what this government for the bankers and the wealthy has done to society. But then the Tories and their mates think that food banks are unnecessary and are exploited by the ‘greedy’ masquerading as poor – so much for the BS in practice.

  7. Seymour

    Dear swat,

    Please feel free to give whatever you can afford to your favourite causes, just as I do.
    Do Not feel free to fund them from my pocket via taxation or any other method.

    When governments fund charities they become beholden to whichever party funds them, that reduces choice at the local, and evry other, level

  8. CGR

    Very true. These days we see pseudo-charities that are really large money raising organisations doing very little real charitable work but spending a lot on publicity with a lot of managers earning a lot of money.

  9. sarntcrip


  10. swat

    Many Charites are transforming themselves into Social Enterprises and bidding for contracts from Local Authorities and Govt, and delivering services, better than the private sector, because they know their customers and are not in it for the money. So in the end you may find yourself paying less council tax.
    The grants and contracts are awarded fairly and they don’t feel beholden to the Authority.

  11. sarntcrip


  12. Michael Lolz

    Vote UKIP

  13. Rose_Hempton

    Yes, because many of these “charities” have Marxian political objectives. Common Purpose is a “charity” designed by New Labour, Fabian socialists like Tony B. Liar to infiltrate and control the public sector. The “Third Sector” has similar political control.

  14. Rose_Hempton

    Vote UKIP

  15. Guest

    Yada yada, any charity which dares help the poor and oppose the government is obviously political and must be taxed, yada yada.

    No surprise you want to replace charities with private companies in bidding and so on…can’t allow non-profit motives.

  16. Guest

    …oppose ANY help for the poor. Right.

  17. Guest

    Keep calling not hating the poor “Marxian”, as you whine about magical Marxists, and see socialism under the bed,

    You’re a good McCarthyite.

  18. Leon Wolfeson

    Ah yes, real charities are your funds for evading tax, right. “Proper” charitable work.

  19. Seymour

    Help the poor and those (animal and human) who need help is what charities are meant to do.

    They can oppose policies they feel are bad, just as you and I can, but that doesn’t imply supporting a particular political party.

    Do not see anyone saying they should be replaced by private companies.

  20. Seymour

    Relevance to what I wrote?

    Be interesting to see who gets the contracts and what they are for. Personally I don’t like the idea, the charities will become dependent on the politicians in power.

    It may start out cheaper but we’ll see the mayor’s wife getting a nice job in the charity; just as has happened in other privatised and non-privatised services.

  21. madasafish

    You make statements which involve conjecture about my motives. You are as usual full of excrement.

  22. madasafish

    And you are either being ignorant or disingenuous. (or both).

    Oxfam has been rapped by the charity watchdog for not taking sufficient steps to avoid appearing politically biassed in a social media campaign which criticised the Government’s austerity programme earlier this year.

  23. Guest

    Oh, I’m being too nice again. My bad.

    So, hmm…ahh yes, you’re for actively raiding charity funds

  24. Guest

    No, under Mardrafish’s regime they can’t. He’s only for the charities which are tax dodges, and only them. He wants the others gone, period.

  25. Guest

    Exactly. The sort of evil you hate, criticism of the way the government is attacking the poor is of course bias, there’s not enough British blood on the floor for you, the Charities who help people must go in your world.

    So no, I’m not you, but thanks for your motives being spelled out there.

  26. madasafish

    Another snide and stupid remark .

    I am not for “actively raiding charity funds” and only a delusional and confused poster could read so from my posters…

  27. madasafish

    Grow up. You impute motives where none exist. I suspect from your antics you are a schoolchild under 15 years old: that is how you behave.

  28. Guest

    So you call cause and effect for the under 15 year olds…typical.

  29. Guest

    Yes, you’re snide and stupid.

    And I was being too nice again,. right, you’re out to legalise theft from charities, since being even remotely nice was “delusional and confused”.

  30. madasafish

    As usual you twist and invent what others say.

    You really need to live in the real world and not invent what you think.

  31. Guest

    Keep fighting cause and effect, as you demand I accept your ideology and don’t think, like you, but simply spew your anti-British propaganda.

  32. madasafish

    ” as you demand I accept your ideology and don’t think,”

    I demand nothing.

    As for “your not thinking”, nothing needs to be done there. Your posts prove the lack of thought behind them.

  33. Tom

    So who is supporting a particular political party?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.