<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d14058325\x26blogName\x3dChiswickite++-+formerly+The+Croydonian\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://croydonian.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_GB\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://croydonian.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d2605630255414466250', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

The other national lottery

As opposed to the original, also known as 'national insurance'.

From Hansard:

"Mr. Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was received by each of the National Lottery good causes in each year since 1995, expressed in 2008-09 prices. [263539]

Barbara Follett: The table shows the total income for each of the national lottery good causes for each financial year since 1995. Figures are adjusted to 2007-08 prices, using GDP deflators for the most recent year available from the Treasury. All figures are rounded to the nearest £000".

And charted.



Note that 'Health, education, the environment and charitable expenditure', one fifth of expenditure in 1995-96 is now half of it.

And there were Joe and Josephine Public believing that lottery funding would not replace conventional tax funding. Well, that's what they told us, didn't they?

Labels: ,

« Home | Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »
| Next »

Blogger oracle3001 said... 4:40 pm

It would be good to see a similar comparison for the costs taken out of the pot for the admin of the grants etc via things like the Big Lottery Fund.

From other reports I have read, they are eating up an ever larger slice of the lottery money, to do the same job of getting the money distributed to "good" causes.  



Blogger Croydonian said... 7:01 pm

A bit of light googling threw up this report from the Mail last year:

"The Big Lottery Fund's budget for staff costs and administration rose from £73million in 2006 to £77million last year.

Over the same period, its payroll increased from 956 to 1,103 employees.

Meanwhile, the total expenditure on good causes fell from £696million to £469million ? a direct result of the Government's raid on Lottery cash to bail out the London Olympics.

This week Parliament will debate plans to divert a further £675million from good causes towards subsidising the over-budget 2012 games.

While the Big Lottery Fund spends 12 per cent of its budget on bureaucracy, Scope, the disabled charity, spends just two per cent. At Children In Need the figure is four per cent."
 



» Post a Comment