Auction art for cancer care?

Manila Rain, by Josh Cole – up for auction

A couple of centuries ago, do-gooders would wander round the East End on a Sunday (flower posies held to their noses to ward off the stench of the poor), to see first hand the unfortunate urchins who would benefit from their alms. Then they would go back to their town houses, run by their servants. At the start of the week, they would go back to running the factories they owned, where they would pay the poor to manufacture goods they would sell at a profit. By not sharing the profits with the poor, but keeping the workers on poverty wages, they ensured that there would be more hapless urchins for them to visit the following Sunday.

(That explanation does rather condense a complex social history into a simplistic stereotype, but the point should be clear.)

The news that De’Longhi is hosting an auction of art on 23rd September to raise funds for Macmillan Cancer Support evokes similar uneasy feelings. Various high-ranking artists have donated a piece of their artwork and various celebrities have donated a short piece of their time to auction the donated works, which will be bought by those rich enough to own artwork.

In the old days, we used to tax businesses and high earning celebrities: the funds thus gathered were distributed by the elected government on health and other public services in accordance with their priorities. Wealth was redistributed, not at a level set by the donor but at a level set collectively by the people, acting through their agents (the government). Public services were funded, not in an anarchic fashion decided by individual, unconnected donors – but by the people, acting through their agents (the government).

This is not to attack De’Longhi, the artists who have donated their work, the celebrities who will auction it or those who will buy it. It’s certainly not to have a go at Macmillan Cancer Support. But it is to express some surprise that no party to this auction seems to think it strange that the taxes we have all already paid do not cover Macmillan’s vital, skilled and essential service. Macmillan doesn’t just go round giving flowers to cancer patients: it organises vital care, which should be 100% state funded every bit as much as NHS treatment should be.

Why is De’Longhi prepared to sponsor an auction, but not to pay more taxes? Why are artists prepared to donate artwork and celebs prepared to donate time to auction items and money to buy them – but neither group wants to pay more tax on their incomes? It’s as if the possession of wealth gives them the right to decide the country’s spending priorities as if they were on a par with the elected government.

Let’s hope we wake up tomorrow and hear that a lot of rich people have donated money in return for donated items, and that Macmillan Cancer Support is an extra bit more financially secure as a result. But it would be even better if we could wake up to a clamour from coffee machine manufacturers, artists and celebs for the Government to set taxes at a higher level in order to pay for the services we need, or for the Government to re-order its spending priorities so that vital services are funded from taxation.

The Government is spending tax money on nuclear weapons and nuclear power – both of which could cause thousands of cancers if there were even a tiny accident. The Government is not spending tax money on caring for those who have cancer already. It should be the other way round. Let’s tax businesses, high earners and celebs enough so that we can fund vital services.  If they want to hold a charity auction, let them raise funds for nuclear weapons, so that how many warheads the UK possesses depends on how many rich people donate to the cause. But weapons of mass destruction just don’t have the same appeal, do they?