Split (1)

train · 2.59M rows

text stringlengths 12 37.3k
Partly it's because cynicism about politicians has led people to be more prepared to believe "independent" bodies (remember John Gummer force feeding his daughter with a burger to reassure about BSE?).
Partly they allow politicians to put controversial decisions at arms length from them ("Sats went wrong? Blame the QCA"). All this makes talking about abolishing quangos easier than doing it.
David Cameron today argues that there are three good roles for quangos - what he describes as "technical", "fairness" and "transparency" - but argues that they should not make policy. Thus he plans to say that: "Ofcom, as we know it, will cease to exist".
Important phrase that - "as we know it". He's not proposing scrapping the 800 strong body that regulates and acts as the competition authority for the communications industry.
He wants it to stop doing things which he believes that civil servants and politicians should - proposing, for example, how to save Channel 4 or regional ITV news.
Broadcasting industry sources tell me that perhaps just a handful of Ofcom officials deal with such matters and that once they've written their reports they hand them to the politicians to debate and decide on.
So, are we set not so much for a bonfire of quangos but for a pruning of them?
* It was three decades ago - in 1978 to be precise - that a pamphlet - The Quango Explosion - written by two Tory MPs Philip Holland and Michael Fallon first (to my recollection) got this debate moving.
The quango was very susceptible to the government buzz of the day e.g. the false concept of fuel poverty.
Certainly time for a review.
I believe many of these " Quangos " should indeed be scrapped, but didn't Labour also promise a "bonfire of Quangos " or words similar.
We live in Northampton and have a Labour government quango -- the WNDC - West Northants Development Corporation. It's role to build a massive number of houses [40,000 plus] across greenfields and farmland just to meet the population growth estimates completed by John Prescott in the early stages of the Labour governmen...
So yes -- these quangos need to be disbanded. They are an unnecessary additional expense. The role should be handed back to democratically elected local councils. Local communities should not be controlled by extensions of central government.
I guess what we really need is some sort of quasi autonomous non governmental organisation to monitor and regulate the activities of 'quangos'?
It is reasonable to view the Conservatives as the Default Government.
However, this leaves us with the constraint that they are by instinct conservative.
Are they capable of radicalism?
Radical Tories tend to be artists of the market although they usually have little direct experience of actually performing in markets. This is not what the country needs at this time.
What is needed is a government that can add value by reducing costs. I think that Cameron is struggling towards that concept but is going to be constrained in that by his party. Rather than being the party of business which it thinks it is, the Conservative party is just another Big Government party: a fact Mrs Thatche...
Watching Cameron is an interesting exercise at the moment. How far he can take his party with him is going to be the real test of his leadership. At the moment their lust for power keeps them in line.
It's not just Westminster which is guilty of employing too many quangos.
Look at the local Councils. They have people in charge of wheelie bin spying, climate change initiatives - the list is exhaustive and costs US a fortune.
It's called Job Creation. Needs a bit of Constructive Dismissal under any other name.
Nick, did you see Cameron on Breakfast TV?
He specifically stated that he was not going to make the mistakes of the past and promise a Bonfire of the Quangos and when elected do precisely nothing. He did promise to analyse and advise which quangos were going to go or be cut before the election to make the commitment specific.
So, I don't get the point of your article I'm afraid.
I hestitate to say that it apes the Brownite strategy of inventing a 'strawman' to knock down.
Quangos have become career stepping stones into the boardrooms of the private sector. Places where young Turks can do a few favours and catch the eye.
They all love to talk about stakeholders in their reports. It says something of their mindset that it rarely occurs to them to include the public as stakeholders.
The less of these people we have in our governance the better.
Quango's do a job and have become a by product of lazy inept governments.
they are someone for thick ministers to blame, and prime ministers to use.
the time of the quango is over much like our pressent parliment its time for refreshing new ideas and honest government.
Why should the Head of Ofcom and others get inxs of £400K plus benifits ?
Is the word quangos not another word for manager? If so gordon brown will have to create another 40 thousand more to administer the new houses he proposes to create on more borrowed money, to a country thats all ready bankrupt. Is there any one out there that still supports this excuse for a government?If so i quote a ...
Quangos are without doubt the biggest waste of money that this and previous governments have supported.
Because they rely on achieving government objectives it is all too easy for them re-word, adjust or re-address statistics that help to justify their budgets and existence.
They are all little more than the man running around a warehouse with a piece of paper looking busy but achieving nothing.
Time they were gone. There are other ways to achieve the things they were set up for.
More 'jobs for the boys' than any real use. Ofcom and the others have done little to really keep their industries in line, they certainly haven't kept my utility bills down!
Cameron is not actually going to get rid of quangos at all. He is simply going to call them something else and PRETEND he has got rid of them!!
and there policy of balance reporting ?
See no such thing as Balance in the Title of this article.
Nick in April 1997 as an active NuLabour member I remember NuLabour promising to prune the 60 - 65 Quangos the Tories had created. Now under NuLabour we have in excess of 1,000. Can you comment on this?
I feel sure that with your nuance you can spin this to rubbish the opposition.
Nick it must be your lucky day, I will not even mention what NuLabour were saying in 1997 about fatcats. I will save that for another day.
Anyone of us who has been involved or dealt with one of these unelected bodies must have come to the conclusion that a bonfire would solve half of the Country's financial problems (the other half being made of various positions within embassies, ONU, EU, regional offices, and so on).
The real problem is timing. Until the parties set themselves a deadline by which re-organise (or better abolish) these parasites we have strong reasons to believe that this is only electioneering.
Gurubear, thought I'd better correct your typo so that your posting makes sense. Should have read Brown and not Cameron in your penultimate para.
It is indeed right that quangos be put under the spotlight. Where to start, you might ask?
How about things like GOSE - the Government of the South East, regional assemblies in general, regional development agencies, in fact all the agencies that keep central and local government apart from one another.
Save the money on these and smaller agencies and redistribute the money to local authorities, at the same time making your local authority properly accountable to you, the electorate.
The answer to quangos is simple.
Let them be financed by a voluntary payment by their clients. Those that do something useful will be financed; those that do not will wither.
Super-councils given power to impose road taxes.
Congestion charges and workplace parking fees could be imposed by unelected quangos and Local Authorities under proposed laws.
The small print of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, gives sweeping power to new organisations to control transport policy, including the power to levy taxes.
This gives Local Authorities the potential to set up numerous Quangos.
I think it is good that this matter is being addressed but I dont believe it is necessary for cuts as 'quango' jobs have essentially been able to raise awareness and to consider some of the areas that we all worry about. I see the point of them in so far as some areas of concerns are necessary to be looked at outside o...
Super Gordo will set up a Quango to carry out the invistigation!
Quangos are a boon for politicians because they can then maintain an interest in a topic but disclaim responsibility when things go pear-shaped.
This is the equivalent of outsourcing of core functions by councils and commercial organisations. If things go wrong, keep your performance bonus by simply blaming the contractor.
Basically, if you're seeking to recruit a manager who has had to actually manage, get someone who has worked for a contractor rather than a mere contract administrator at the employing organisation!
Stop the messing about. We need a 30% cut in public expenditure immediately. Everyone in the public sector should have to re-apply for their jobs, with new terms and conditions. Re-appoint no more than 70% of them. They must work to 70 for a defined contribution pension scheme, just like the rest of us. Withdraw govern...
The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill 2008/2009 was passed after the Manchester referendum on their Toll Tax, which was clearly kicked out.
Just goes to show how Duff and NuLabour were listening to people. He just went ahead to create a further tier of more local Quangos. Now Manchester will get the tax by the back door.
Nick this initiative was in the small print - something I have warned you about before.
I'm sure in my Politics A-Level we were taught that Thatcher was a big fan of Quangos?
I have seen various estimates of the total cost of QANGOs that range from GBP17 - 60+ BIL. It seems to depend on how many are included within the category. 17BIL is a drop in the ocean in Brown's new environment. 60BIL is almost 10 percent of the original planned government spend for this year.
Many (most?) QANGOs are set up so that a Department can hand-off functions and Ministers no longer become "responsible" for the day-to-day activity or the dispersal of big lumps of public money.
Seems pretty evident that there is enormous overlap and the existence of so many specialised agencies makes it even more difficult to ensure joined up delivery of government policy.
Every QANGO should be forced to justify its existence.
Meanwhile, costs could and should be shaken out - starting at the top. Costs are going to have to be reduced anyway since there's nothing left in the piggy bank.
Brown has had 12 years to get a bit of financial discipline in direct and indirect arms of government. That didn't happen.
Regardless of Nick's comment, I'd welcome a bit of strong pruning of the QANGOs while a serious study is made of which ones should be entirely jetisoned.
(And, by the way, Nick, why no political comment on the sudden decision to refer the MG Rover report to the Serious Fraud Office. Can't possibly be to hide any suggestion that Blair/Brown's injection of a few mllion quid (to pay the wage bill, so no employment catastrophe occured just before the election) could possibl...
Well i'm not sure about that myself, but you have to look more at the increase in Quangos under Labour.
I think Liam Byrne should keep his word and immediately disband one QUANGO that is full of unelected members.......THE CABINET......unelected PM.....unelected Lord Mandelson.......unelected Glynis Kinnock......unelected Sir Alan Sugar, Adonis, Malloch-Brown, Drayson, Baroness Royal etc, etc, etc.
The biggest question is why our constitution is over-centralised, over-secretive and over-bureaucratic and why there is not more openness and accountability, The real alternative is a bonfire of the quangos and greater democracy.
I wonder how Duff would spin this today, 12 years on and over 900 Quangos more.
Roll on 2010 - 10 to 11 months to go.
Setting up and staffing new quangos is, of course, an extremely easy way for the government to create new jobs and thus claim to have lowered unemployment. You can't help wondering how many of these organisations are set up primarily for this very function.
The SNP promised to cut the number of quangos when they came to power in Scotland; however, it turned out to be more hassle than they envisaged. The pretty sensible idea of merging two separate sports organisations into one was highly criticised by Labour and the media (same thing, really), so I would imagine any attem...
Let's wait and see what they actually propose, if they ever get round to that.
You may wish to modify your ideas slightly unless you want 70 year old police officers, firefighters and commandos! They are all public sector too.
I agree that here is plenty of scope for cuts in the public sector to be sure, and the pensions arrangements do need sorting out once and for all; they are simply no longer affordable, and that must include politician's pensions. Brown has bloated the public sector beyond belief, and on the surface, the ideas voiced by...
Treasury announces bonfire of quangos to save taxpayer millions.
Despite government claims that the number of quangos is falling, at least 40 new bodies have been created since Gordon Brown took over as Prime Minister in June 2007. The Treasury has admitted that 160 of the biggest quangos, set up at arms length from Whitehall departments, cost the taxpayer GBP34 billion last year.
The TaxPayers Alliance estimated that in 2006-07 there were more than a thousand quangos and agencies, which cost the taxpayer more than GBP64 billion.
The Treasury has also admitted that the Ministry of Justice alone has 200 quangos.
No wonder Jack is looking a little lacquered lately!
well anyone proposing to get rid of ofcom gets my vote,they have done nothing to move forwards Britain's communications,instead they bend over backwards to ensure the consumer is fleeced to a maximum.
This shameful unelected and unaccountable face of New Labour touches everyone's lives and billions of pounds of taxpayers cash has been squandered.
But sacking or reducing the numbers of quangos is only a small step. Cost and accountability are equally important. At the heart is the issue of democracy, where the unaccountable are run by the unelected chosen ones.
But the government will do nothing to solve the problem, because at its heart New Labour prefers to rule by cronies, rather than democracy.
With worthless, useless and wasteful quangos, haven't we all been taken for a ride in quangoland?
How do you feel we should balance the books?
Whitehall lines up doomsday cutbacks.
Secret doomsday plans for 20% cuts in public spending are being prepared by senior civil servants, who fear politicians are failing to confront the scale of the budget black hole.
Quangos fulfill political aims. Let's be clear both the Tories and Labour have wasted money through quangos in the past. There was one in the eighties that looked into people who felt they were pressured into joining trade unions because the industry was closed shop. Budget in the millions and they only ever had 1 case...

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.