<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
 <rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
   <title>New Statesman - <![CDATA[Mike Eastwood]]></title>
   <link>http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/mike_eastwood</link>
 
  <description><![CDATA[]]></description> 
   <language>en</language>



				
  <item>
   <title><![CDATA[Some are more equal than others]]></title>
   <link>http://www.newstatesman.com/199911080070</link>
   <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.newstatesman.com/199911080070</guid>
   <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 1999 12:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
   <dc:creator>Mike Eastwood</dc:creator>
  
  <description><![CDATA[<p><em>For many "good causes", the benefits of Lottery grants have turned out to be uneven or short term, writesMike Eastwood</em></p>

<p>At its inception the Lottery was not universally welcomed. Apart from the gambling arguments, several early reports predicted dire consequences for charitable income as the public transferred its giving into Lottery spending. Several big charities explicitly blamed the Lottery for a decline in their voluntary income. Tenovus, a cancer charity, found its own lottery was wiped out by the introduction of scratchcards. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations produced a  <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/199911080070">[...]</a></p>
]]></description>
 </item>
    </channel>
</rss>