Tribune – Comment, news and reviews from Britain's democratic left

It’s the Oscars for the super rich: Forbes Magazine this week published its annual survey of the world’s billionaires.  Whatever its forensic accuracy it is nevertheless used as a handy barometer of the state of the world’s economies, not least that of the United States where year in, year out for the past couple of decades the list shows that around 400 of its richest possess as much wealth as 155 million of their compatriots – the so-called bottom half of society. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, 55, would have topped the list with a personal fortune of $88 billion – if he and his wife Melinda had not given away $28 billion to good causes such as the eradication of malaria and polio in poorer, developing countries through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Berkshire Hathaway investment vehicle founder Warren Buffett whose fortune is estimated at $47 billion would have been second if he, too, had not given away billions to philanthropic causes. Both Mr Gates and Mr Buffett have been trying to persuade their fellow billionaires, through their charity The Giving Pledge, to give way at least half of their immense fortunes either during their lifetimes or as bequests. Their campaign has met with mixed responses probably best characterised by Carlos Slim Helu, the Mexican telecoms entrepreneur who is officially the world’s richest man (according to Forbes, at least), with an estimated personal wealth of $60 billion. Businessmen do more good by creating jobs and wealth through investment, “not by being Santa Claus”, says the no-nonsense Mexican billionaire.

This has been doing the rounds in Westminster, Twitter, cyberspace and elsewhere for a few weeks now and has been attributed to many, including TV presenter Andrew Neil, but it still merits an airing: “Q: What is the difference between ‘The Big Society’ and ‘The Big Issue’? A: Nobody buys ‘The Big Society’.”

David Cameron’s voluntarism initiative has also become synonymous with redundancy, as in losing your job is “joining the Big Society”. Even the man put in charge, Lord Wei, found he could not do it and make ends meet so had to scale back his hours. So far, so inauspicious – couldn’t really get much worse, or could it? TimeBank, the charity hailed by Office for Civil Society Minister Nick Hurd as the retort to the cynics faces possible closure – just months after celebrating its 10th anniversary – following his department’s refusal to give it a £500,000 grant. The organisation, which employs 35 staff and co-ordinates 300,000 volunteers and work experience candidates, was one of 42 organisations receiving government funding and invited to reapply to become a “strategic partner” and get up to £500,000 a year until the programme’s closure in 2014. Spending cuts means that only 14 designated “strategic partners” will get any funding. The Cabinet Office, we are told, is mulling whether it will publish the full list of organisations that have already been told they are being cut loose and won’t get any money. As for TimeBank, which says it is considering a legal challenge, a Cabinet Office spokesperson said drily that the organisation was given six months notice “which is ample time to plan for the future”.