Shove your knitting... and your "stakeholder" labels

Charities aren’t going anywhere. And if advocating for people’s basic rights makes us “offenders” in the eyes of this government, then so be it.

It’s been over a decade since a government minister told charities to “stick to their knitting.” We all laughed, rolled our eyes, and thought: “Well, that was patronising nonsense. Surely, they’ll never say something so absurd again.”

And yet, here we are.

Fast forward to 2025, and now we have a health secretary who, in a leaked video, has decided charities aren’t even partners anymore. No, no—according to Wes Streeting, we’re mere stakeholders. Our job, apparently, is to “bear with” the government, not challenge it. And—best of all—he’s on a mission to “break the culture” of how we lobby them.

How very generous of him.

If you feel a sense of déjà vu, you’re not alone. This is a classic example of politicians misunderstanding, undermining, and devaluing the role of charities—right up there with “stick to your knitting” and “keep out of politics.”

And once again, the voluntary sector is having none of it.

CHARITIES: THE GAP-FILLERS OF A FAILING STATE

For those in Westminster who need a refresher: Charities don’t just campaign because it’s fun. They campaign because the state is failing to do its job properly.

Take the Royal Osteoporosis Society (ROS), the so-called "worst offender" in Streeting’s eyes. What’s their crime? They’re holding the government to its pre-election promise to roll out universal Fracture Liaison Services (FLS) by 2030—a commitment that, if actually followed through, will prevent 74,000 fractures over five years and save thousands of lives.

So when the government started quietly watering down its language—swapping “universal by 2030” for the much flimsier “widening access” phrase—the ROS rightly kicked up a fuss. That’s what charities do. We hold the powerful to account.

And instead of addressing the real issue—why a critical public health service might not be fully funded—Streeting decided to take a pop at the charity sector.

"LOBBYING" VS "ADVOCACY"—A TOXIC SMEAR CAMPAIGN

One of the more insidious tactics at play here is the deliberate framing of charity advocacy as dirty “lobbying.” As Craig Jones, CEO of the Royal Osteoporosis Society, pointed out, the word “lobbying” conjures up images of tobacco firms, dodgy backroom deals, and brown envelopes stuffed with cash.

Let’s be crystal clear: charity campaigning is not the same as corporate lobbying.

We don’t have billion-pound budgets, luxury lunches, and MPs on speed dial. We don’t whisper in the ears of ministers to score lucrative tax breaks. We advocate on behalf of the people we serve—because, quite frankly, if we didn’t, who the hell would?

Jones said it best: “The only thing that motivates us is the 2,500 people who are dying needless deaths from hip fractures every year.”

If that’s what makes a charity a “worst offender,” then every single one of us should be striving for the same label.

A GOVERNMENT THAT WANTS TO SILENCE DISSENT

Of course, this isn’t really about osteoporosis services. It’s about power. It’s about control.

And it’s not the first time a government has tried to shut charities up.

In 2014, Civil Society Minister Brooks Newmark infamously told charities to “stick to their knitting” and leave politics to the politicians.
The 2014 Lobbying Act put strict limits on how charities could campaign in the run-up to elections, making it harder to speak out.
In 2016, a leaked clause in government contracts—dubbed the “anti-advocacy clause”—tried to ban charities from using government funding to campaign at all. (It was later dropped after massive backlash.)
And now, in 2025, we have a health secretary who wants to “break the culture” of charities lobbying the government.

It’s the same tired playbook, over and over again: Delegitimise charity campaigning. Label it as “political.” Starve organisations of funding. And then act surprised when services collapse.

CHARITIES ARE NOT "STAKEHOLDERS"—WE ARE THE SAFETY NET

Now, let’s talk about this “stakeholder” nonsense.

According to Wes Streeting, charities are not partners but stakeholders—a word that implies we’re just another interest group to be managed, rather than organisations with deep expertise, frontline experience, and the trust of the communities we serve.

Debra Allcock Tyler, CEO of the Directory of Social Change, put it best when she said:

“If you don’t want us, all you have to do is do the job that we do – or prevent us being needed in the first place. Simples!”

And she’s right.

If the government actually funded mental health services properly, we wouldn’t need crisis helplines.

If the government actually provided for disabled people, we wouldn’t need support charities.

If the government actually invested in prevention, we wouldn’t need charities to pick up the pieces.

But they don’t. So we do.

And instead of thanking charities for saving the government’s arse year after year, ministers turn around and slap us down for being too demanding.

Directory of Social Change