Des avortistes pas en phase avec la société

Dans le Guardian, la journaliste Polly Curtis se fait l'écho de l'inquiétude des organisations avortistes britanniques face à la perspective d'un changement de législation.

Les associations de gauche qui militent pour la banalisation de l'avortement se heurtent à une difficulté considérable, il est très difficile de « vendre » un avortement au public habituel des donateurs.

Leur action d'influence ne peut s'appuyer sur une action de masse par le biais du marketing direct car elle risque fort de perdre beaucoup d'argent.

La solution consiste à faire des actions d'influence auprès de pourvoyeurs de fonds publics ou para-publics.

C'est la recette à laquelle fait appel, par exemple, SOS Racisme.

Toutefois, cet échec à entrer en empathie avec la population est révélatrice du fait que ces associations proposent des politiques qui ne sont pas aussi en phase avec ce que pensent les citoyens que les grands médias (comme le Guardian) le prétendent.

A titre de comparaison théorique, je suis frappé par le fait que l'Œuvre des orphelins de la Police recueille à elle seule 15,5 millions d'euros du public pour seulement 0,1 million d'argent public.

Le budget de l'Œuvre des orphelins de la Police.

En d'autres termes, on pourrait avancer que cette association est bien plus représentative de la France que SOS Racisme dont le budget d'un peu plus de 1 million d'euros est pour l'essentiel payé par de l'argent public et par Pierre Bergé.

Abortion law reform plans criticised by women's groups 
Charities and health bodies call on equalities minister to intervene and protect rights of women to get impartial advice
A coalition of women's groups has written to the equalities minister, Lynne Featherstone, urging her to intervene in the row over backbenchers' attempts to reform abortion protocols. They say the proposals could delay abortions and allow anti-abortion groups to counsel women.

Featherstone is being asked to seek a guarantee within government that the current system won't change, ahead of a potential vote that could overhaul the existing counselling services for women seeking to terminate a pregnancy

The signatories to the letter include the Fawcett Society, the Women's Health Equalities Consortium, the Medical Women's Federation and the National Assembly of Women as well as the trade union Unison.

It will pile pressure on the Liberal Democrat minister, who has faced criticisms that she has failed to intervene on other coalition policies that Labour claims adversely affected women.

"Preventing abortion providers from offering decision-making support opens the door for organisations opposed in principle to abortion to become formally involved in counselling women on their pregnancy options," the letter says. "Previous governments have always acted on evidence and taken guidance from expert medical professionals. There is no evidence of a need for change in this area and no support from professional clinical organisations for such change."

The intervention comes amid wranglings in government over how to handle an amendment that could be selected when the health bill returns to the Commons next week, which would mean all women seeking abortions would be offered counselling independent of the abortion provider, in a move that could strip charities that provide the services of their current role. It is being proposed by the Tory backbencher Nadine Dorries and Labour's Frank Field and backed by a campaign with links to anti-abortion groups.

On Sunday, the Department of Health said that it would go ahead with plans to introduce independent counselling and consult on how it would work, in a move that was interpreted as caving into the campaign.

After an intervention from No 10 and furious Lib Dems, the government announced it will not support the amendment – though MPs will still get a free vote – with David Cameron and DoH ministers voting against. It also reworded its position on the plans, saying it would consult on the "best" counselling options for women but that the outcome was not a foregone conclusion.

Anne Milton, the public health minister, wrote to coalition MPs yesterday to clarify the government's position and confirm that the health ministers would vote against it.

On Thursday, the Right to Know campaign, which is supporting Dorries's and Field's campaign and is backed by some known anti-abortionists, responded robustly to the government's opposition to the plan. It published a poll of MPs conducted in April, prior to the row over the implications of the move, which found that some 92% backed the statement. "A woman should have a right to impartial advice when considering having an abortion, from a source that has no commercial interest in her decision."

A spokeswoman for the campaign said: "The widespread support for the objectives of this campaign is unsurprising.  It is important that conflicts of interest are removed from the provision of abortion counseling.

 "We want to see women considering abortion provided with the space to think through their decision. This is not a party political issue. The welfare of women is at stake here.

Yvette Cooper, the shadow equalities minister, said the changing position had left the issue mired in confusion. "There is now complete confusion and chaos in government on abortion. This is what happens when David Cameron pursues short-term headlines without thinking the issues through," she said.

Darinka Aleksic, co-ordinator of the Abortion Rights UK campaign, said: "We need to be clear, these amendments are an attack on women's reproductive rights. If implemented they will limit, rather than expand, the availability of impartial advice and information to women facing unplanned pregnancy. Their aim is to restrict and deter women from accessing abortion services."

Evan Harris, vice-chair of the Liberal Democrat federal policy committee and pro-choice campaigner, said: "Previous governments in this sensitive area have always acted only on the basis of the best advice from expert medical organisations and I will strongly urge the government not to disturb or propose disturbing the existing arrangements for providing unbiased advice until this has demonstrated that there is a problem and persuaded the Royal Colleges or BMA of the case."

Quand les petites phrases rapportent gros

Michele Bachmann, candidate républicaine aux primaires du parti républicain : « Plus je cause plus je palpe. »

Dans ce papier de Dan Eggen et T.W. Farnam paru ce matin dans les colonnes du Washington Post, les journalistes détaillent la technique des politiciens américains de faire feu de « petites phrases » pour accroître leur levage de fonds.

Michele Bachmann, others raise millions for political campaigns with ‘money blurts’


In the ever-evolving world of campaign fundraising, some politicians have stumbled on yet another way to bring in buckets of cash. Let’s call it the “money blurt.”

Here’s how it works: An up-and-coming politician blurts out something incendiary, provocative or otherwise controversial. The remark bounces around the blogs and talk shows and becomes a sensation.

And in the midst of it all, the politician’s fundraisers are manning the phones and raking in the donations.

Consider Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), the tea party favorite and newly minted presidential candidate, who has made a specialty of raising money in the wake of bold and well-placed remarks. Shortly after accusing President Obama of having “anti-American views” during one cable-news appearance, for example, Bachmann took in nearly $1 million.

The use of money blurts could have a significant impact on the strength of some candidates’ fundraising efforts, which will come into focus next month with the release of fresh disclosure forms for GOP presidential campaigns. Bachmann aides have said she received a major boost with her appearance at a Republican debate in New Hampshire, though they did not release numbers.

The phenomenon marks another phase in the quest for money in politics, fueled by the eternal hum of the Internet, social media and 24-hour cable news. The tactic could prove especially valuable for insurgent candidates such as Bachmann who are likely to rely heavily on smaller donations for their 2012 campaigns.

“It’s a great way to attract a very high volume of small donors and drive excitement,” said Ron Bonjean, a GOP consultant and co-founder of Singer Bonjean Strategies. “If you’re in the money game and you say something controversial, you’ll have support from a very energetic core.”

The money blurt — spontaneous or not — is a close cousin to a technique called the “money bomb,” in which a campaign or its supporters designate a specific day or time period to raise a vast amount of cash and generate publicity. The best-known practitioner is libertarian favorite Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), whose followers have used money bombs to raise as much as $6 million at a time for his presidential campaigns.

As for money blurts, perhaps the most famous example came in September 2009, when back-bench House Republican Joe Wilson (S.C.) yelled “You lie!” during an Obama address to Congress.

Within a week of the outburst, supporters had given more than $2 million to the little-known congressman, urged on by conservative bloggers and Wilson’s own campaign. His Democratic challenger cited Wilson’s remark in his own fundraising, prompting a sudden campaign arms race.

“Our office has been overwhelmed with phone calls, letters and contributions,” Wilson said several days after the incident.

Former congressman Alan Grayson, a liberal firebrand from Florida, attracted GOP condemnation in 2009 after he said on the House floor that the Republican health-care plan amounted to “Die quickly.” He quickly raised nearly $1 million.

Dites à ma mère que je suis pianiste dans un bordel

Cette phrase de Jacques Séguéla m'est revenue une fois de plus à l'esprit quand j'ai raccroché voici quelques jours le téléphone après une conversation avec un possible client.

Une association française avec un grand potentiel pour le fund raising venait de subir un revers en justice, perdant le procès intenté à des tiers dans une cause ayant reçu une très grande publicité dans les médias.

J'ai repris contact avec son président pour lui suggérer de transformer cet échec en succès grâce au marketing direct.

Je lui ai expliqué comment cette déconvenue pouvait se transformer en une superbe opportunité pour rebondir, recruter de nouveaux donateurs et recueillir des fonds pour financer l'appel et une campagne en direction de l'opinion publique.

Après m'avoir écouté, il m'a répondu qu'il n'était pas intéressé parce qu'il avait assez d'argent et qu'il ne croyait pas au fund raising car lui même n'ouvrait aucun courrier de cette nature.

Enfin, il m'a sorti son argument massue : « et je trouve que ce que vous faites est immoral ».

La conservation s'est poursuivie par mes contre-arguments, notamment en citant le nombre faramineux d'oeuvres pieuses qui font appel au marketing direct.

Rien n'y a fait.

Voilà comment j'en suis venu à me souvenir de cette phrase de Jacques Séguéla et aussi à ce que ma propre mère m'avait dit un jour : « tu ne fais pas un métier convenable».

Les vieux et le fund raising

Diana Athill : «il ne faut pas prendre les sous des petits vieux». Alors, on fait quoi nous les fund raisiers ?

Voici l'entretien du Guardian de ce matin avec Diana Athill relatif au scandale de la maltraitance des vieux au Royaume Uni. J'ai été frappé par la phrase :
You can't make money out of old people

C'est pourtant la base du fund raising.

Why the private sector shouldn't touch social care

'The ghastly thing is, a great percentage of homes are run by private companies. And you don't set up an old people's home as a private company unless you think you're going to make a profit. You can't make money out of old people."

The last time I saw Diana Athill was about six months ago, in Shoreditch House, where she was reading Desdemona, a short story she'd written in the 1960s that won an erotic fiction prize in Transatlantic Review. (If you have no interest in the lives of elderly people and would prefer to read something whose lines will be ringing in your mind for months, then I direct you to this collection: Midsummer Night in the Workhouse.)

I didn't at the time realise that Athill was even in a care home, but she had been for a year and a half. The Mary Fielding Guild is, she warns me, rated one of the best six care homes in the country. This is in no way representative of the way elderly people are treated in residential places. It looks genteel, and it's in a genteel part of town, but as she says, "We're fed, warmed, cleaned, kept entirely, on what we pay. And what we pay is considerably less than you can pay in far worse places."

Can this possibly be true? It feels like an Oxford college, with a cheerful atmosphere and deeply pleasant surroundings. But if the cost isn't much more than somewhere run by Southern Cross, then something has gone seriously wrong. Some people in care homes are able to live proper lives, while other people pay the same rates and get bottom-of-the-pile, collectivised treatment.

Athill has never, in my brief experience, been sloppy with her facts, let alone wrong, and this is no different: care homes, be they atrocious or Ritz-for-the-old, are all in the same ballpark. You can, if you really shop around, pay less than £400 a week (I didn't find any for less, but Southern Cross have taken their prices off the internet; or maybe they never posted them). And you could, if you were determined, pay more than £900. But around £550 a week seems to be where most places are sited.

This is as pure an argument as you need against the private sector going anywhere near social care. Where need is serviced by the third sector (Mary Fielding is a trust, run by "high-minded individuals. And I really do mean they're high-minded"), it is civilised. Where it's serviced by people trying to turn a profit, it is not.

"This place is a dream …" Athill continues. "I'd been here for about a week and I thought, 'what is it about this place that's so marvellous?' And I realised, it is goodness – an extraordinary feeling of goodness. None of these people are anything but genuinely kind. That's the secret of a decent place. You can't get it if you're a remote company, running a scruffy little place and trying to make some money out of it.

"A very nice young woman who comes and does my feet, she's a visiting chiropodist, she goes to quite a lot of homes. I said to her, what are the other places that you go to like? And she said 'Don't ask'. It's frightful what can go on in these places; you've got these helplessly dependent people who've got limited funds, and you've got to do everything for them."

Clearly, residential care is incredibly expensive whoever you are, wherever you are, and Athill says, "If I had daughters, I'm afraid I would probably be taking advantage of them. Daughters are sweet, and if you're sufficiently nice to your daughters all your life, they tend to rally round their mums when they're old and frail.

"I did it myself. I didn't quite go and live with my mother, but I changed my plans and I used to work three days in London and do four days with her. And I'm very glad I did."

There is a mischievous lack of rue in her voice, as if tacitly to note that daughters might be sweet, but they make plenty of demands of their own.

Equally clearly, it's a source of tremendous anxiety to old people that they flog their houses to fund this care, and then don't know how long the money will last. But the point is, a well-run care home can be a wonderful place. Athill says she can work and concentrate better here than she did when she lived independently.

'If I'm reviewing a book or something, it's lovely. I can spend the whole day without worrying about anything; no dog to walk, no shopping to do."

I wondered whether one felt one's age more, living in sheltered accommodation or living at home, and Athill replied, "I think how aware one is depends entirely on one's health. As long as you don't have aches and pains, and forget everything all the time, you feel just like you always did. But you do, when you start to get aches and pains, become aware of it."

None of this is easy. Athill remembers packing up her house, and says feelingly, "I had total panic, the awful horror of giving away your things. It was very, very, very painful – so painful that I ended up spending two days in hospital thinking I was having heart failure."

But there is one quite simple proof here, which is that you can, for the money, have a civilised life. If the business model is broken for Southern Cross, if life is miserable in the main tranche of care homes, it is because the private sector is unsuited to this work.

Le dilemme du fund raising militant

Parmi les associations qui défendent tel ou tel point de vue dans le débat civique dans notre pays, il en existent certaines qui se trouvent à la charnière entre un groupe de pression (lobby) à la mode étatsunienne et le groupe de recherches (think-tank).

Leur nature entre-deux trouve une de ses sources dans la faiblesse des financements privés pour ce style d'action civique en Europe. Faute de moyens comparables à leurs grands-frères d'Outre-Atlantique, ces organismes n'ont d'autre ressource dans notre pays que de faire appel à la générosité du public.

Une génération plus tôt, des organisation discrètes comme par exemple le GRECE ou la Cité catholique ou encore l'Opus Dei ont fait appel à la générosité de leurs membres et à celle d'amis choisis, approchés un à un, qui sous des appellation diverses ont accepté de verser de l'argent pour une cause. La droite laïque désignait cette structure comme le « Club des mille » ou chez les catholiques les donateurs recevaient le joli nom de « coopérateurs ».

Puis est venue la révolution du fund raising à l'américaine sous l'impulsion de pionniers comme le regretté François Laarman, un de ces hommes qui font bouger les sociétés.

Toutefois, le fund raising fondé sur l'usage massif du marketing direct entraîne des dérives dont nous devons être les premiers à prendre garde.

La plus grave de ces dérives est que le marketing direct possède une logique propre qui contraint son utilisateur à penser le marketing comme une fin en soi et non plus un moyen. C'est criant dans le choix de certains thèmes ou axes d'action.

C'est d'autant plus vrai pour les associations qui se lancent exclusivement par cette voie.

Enfin, et je m'arrête là, le marketing direct a tendance a générer une « bulle » d'adhérents ou de sympathisants (nom donné aux donateurs de plus de douze mois) dont les résultats financiers justifient guère plus que d'honnêtes revenus à ceux qui font tourner la machine.

Il en découle une influence réelle sur la vie civique de notre pays qui se réduit à rien.

J'ai en tête quelques exemples caricaturaux. Mes lecteurs aussi.

Il est important, à la fois pour ceux qui conçoivent les campagnes que pour ceux qui les commandent, de toujours penser à prendre en compte le monde réel, la vraie vie. Notre travail se doit d'avoir une finalité sociale, civique et même politique au sens noble du terme.

Le merketing direct au service du fund raising est un moyen au service d'une cause réelle, bien palpable. Les auditeurs qui financent Radio courtoisie ont un extraordinaire ROI tout comme les donateurs à la Fondation pour l'Ecole, la Fondation Pasteur ou encore Aide à l'Eglise en détresse ou tant d'autres.

Ne l'oublions pas.